Sunil Kumar Jain Shrishrimal v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenuebuilding, Raipur (C.g.) Building, Raipur (C.g

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 183 of 2023 Sunil Kumar Jain Shrishrimal S/o Late Shri Mohanlal ShrishrimalAged About 62 Years Occupation Proprietor, M/s SaheliJewelers, Gandhi Chowk Durg (C.G.) 491001 Pan No.Ajcps2009q ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax Central RevenueBuilding, Raipur (C.G.) Building, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Revenue Building,Raipur (C.G.) Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle - 1(1), Income TaxOffice 32/32 Bungalows, Bhilai (C.G.) 490031 Office 32/32 Bungalows, Bhilai (C.G.) 490031 4. National Faceless Assessment Centre New Delhi. ---- Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Ram Purohit, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocatewith Mr. Anand Dadariya, AdvocateFor Respondents:Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the briefof Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocateof Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate 25.07.2023 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyOrder on Board Heard. 1)The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 26.06.2023 issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act along with updatedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Income Tax Act’) issued by respondent No.2/Deputyunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act along with updatedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Income Tax Act’) issued by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). 25.07.2023 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan PandeyOrder on Board Heard. 1)The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 26.06.2023 issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act along with updatedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Income Tax Act’) issued by respondent No.2/Deputyunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act along with updatedorder under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort ‘the Income Tax Act’) issued by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.). 2)The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is anindividual, carrying on the business of purchase and sale ofjewellery as proprietor of M/s. Saheli Jewelers at Bhilai (C.G.).His PAN Number is and he submitted his return ofincome for Assessment Year 2016-2017 on 10.10.2016 wheretotal income was declared as Rs.88,80,040/-. In support of theIncome Tax Return, an audit report in Form No.3CB and 3CDunder Section 44-AB of the Income Tax Act was also submitted.Surprisingly, the petitioner received a notice issued byrespondent No.3 under Section 148A(b) dated 27.03.2023through a registered post calling upon the petitioner to explain asto why his case for assessment year 2016-2017 should not bereopened. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice on03.04.2023 through e-mail before respondent No.2 along withthe ledger account of M/s. Navkar Jewelers, Durg appearing inAccount Books of M/s. Saheli Jewelers, Durg, wherein the totaltransaction with M/s. Navkar Jewelers was to the extent ofRs.12,37,62,890/- in respect of the purchase and sale of goldbullion. On 10.04.2023, an order under Section 148-A(d) of theIncome Tax Act was passed and thereafter notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act was issued.individual, carrying on the business of purchase and sale ofjewellery as proprietor of M/s. Saheli Jewelers at Bhilai (C.G.).His PAN Number is and he submitted his return ofincome for Assessment Year 2016-2017 on 10.10.2016 wheretotal income was declared as Rs.88,80,040/-. In support of theIncome Tax Return, an audit report in Form No.3CB and 3CDunder Section 44-AB of the Income Tax Act was also submitted.Surprisingly, the petitioner received a notice issued byrespondent No.3 under Section 148A(b) dated 27.03.2023through a registered post calling upon the petitioner to explain asto why his case for assessment year 2016-2017 should not bereopened. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice on03.04.2023 through e-mail before respondent No.2 along withthe ledger account of M/s. Navkar Jewelers, Durg appearing inAccount Books of M/s. Saheli Jewelers, Durg, wherein the totaltransaction with M/s. Navkar Jewelers was to the extent ofRs.12,37,62,890/- in respect of the purchase and sale of goldbullion. On 10.04.2023, an order under Section 148-A(d) of theIncome Tax Act was passed and thereafter notice under Section148 of the Income Tax Act was issued. 3)The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.119/2023 before thisCourt against a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section148 and order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Income TaxAct and vide order dated 04.05.2023, the petition was allowedCourt against a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section148 and order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Income TaxAct and vide order dated 04.05.2023, the petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to respondent No.2, to passorders afresh after supplying the relevant materials andinformation relied upon by the Revenue, in light of the judgmentpassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal, 2023(1) SCC 617. 3)The petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.119/2023 before thisCourt against a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section148 and order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Income TaxAct and vide order dated 04.05.2023, the petition was allowedCourt against a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section148 and order passed under Section 148-A(d) of the Income TaxAct and vide order dated 04.05.2023, the petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to respondent No.2, to passorders afresh after supplying the relevant materials andinformation relied upon by the Revenue, in light of the judgmentpassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal, 2023(1) SCC 617. 4)Thereafter again, on 15.05.2023, notice under Section 148A(b)of the Income Tax Act was issued and after submission of thereply, an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act waspassed and thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act was issued on 26.06.2023 against which, this petitionhas been preferred.of the Income Tax Act was issued and after submission of thereply, an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act waspassed and thereafter, notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act was issued on 26.06.2023 against which, this petitionhas been preferred. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against theorder passed by respondent No.2 under Section 148A (d) andnotice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, there isno provision for appeal or revision and duty is cast upon theauthority passing the order to consider all the relevant andavailable defence taken by the petitioner. He would submit thatproper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner as thedocuments have not been supplied despite repeatedapplications. It is further submitted that the return for AssessmentYear 2016-2017 was filed and the same is still available with theauthorities, therefore, treating the assessee M/s. Saheli Jewelersas a NON-PAN case and not uploading the notices and order onthe ITBA portal on the ID of the petitioner has rendered the entireprocess illegal. He would also submit that the order passedunder Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act is contrary to theorder passed by respondent No.2 under Section 148A (d) andnotice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, there isno provision for appeal or revision and duty is cast upon theauthority passing the order to consider all the relevant andavailable defence taken by the petitioner. He would submit thatproper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner as thedocuments have not been supplied despite repeatedapplications. It is further submitted that the return for AssessmentYear 2016-2017 was filed and the same is still available with theauthorities, therefore, treating the assessee M/s. Saheli Jewelersas a NON-PAN case and not uploading the notices and order onthe ITBA portal on the ID of the petitioner has rendered the entireprocess illegal. He would also submit that the order passedunder Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act is contrary to the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act as it has tobe proved by the Revenuethat income chargeable to tax morethan Rs.50 lacs was escaped by the assessee and the limitationis only three years, whereas, for availing the benefit of theextended period of 10 years it must be shown that incomechargeable to tax was more than Rs. 50 lakh. The order hasbeen passed and notice has been issued against the petitionerwhereas, there is no material to establish that the petitioner hasescaped assessment in a particular assessment year for thechargeable tax of more than Rs.50 lacs. Learned counsel for thepetitioner would further submit that in an earlier round oflitigation, this Court has categorically directed the Revenue tosupply the documents, which are the foundation of the orderpassed under Section 148A (d) and notice issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act but same has not been complied within its letter and spirit. He has placed reliance on the judgmentspassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union ofIndia and others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra), Red ChilliInternational Sales Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., reported in2023 SCC Online SC 237 and judgment passed by the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench in the matterof Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Shri PukhrajSoni passed in Income Tax Appeal No.53/2017 dated06.02.2019 and judgment passed by the High Court of MadhyaPradesh at Jabalpur in the matter of Sita Ram Gautam Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in Writ Petition No.8416 of 2023 decided on20.04.2023. No.8416 of 2023 decided on20.04.2023. 6)On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents wouldsubmit that during the survey under Section 133A of the IncomeTax Act on Pagaria Group, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, one Mohit Jainwas found along with the cash amounting to Rs.33,00,000/- on11.04.2019 and his statement was recorded on the same datewhere he stated that M/s. K.R. Jewellers, Raipur is involved inthe trading of bullion and the seized amount was the saleproceeds of bullion of the last two days. Mr. Mohit Jain furtheradmitted that he purchased bullion from M/s. Navkar Jewellers,M/s. Sumit Jewelers, M/s. K.D. Jewelers and M/s. AnupJewellers. It is further admitted by this witness that though smallcash bills were prepared but actually no such bullion waspurchased or sold. He would further submit that the cash saleswere repeatedly entered by M/s. Navkar Jewellers in its books ofaccounts during the Financial Year 2015-16. In the books ofaccounts of M/s. Navkar Jewellers during Financial Year 2015-16, name of M/s. Saheli Jewellers has been entered pertaining toan order of Rs.60,33,02,548/- and thus, M/s. Saheli Jewellershas shown bogus purchases amounting to Rs.60,33,02,548/-from M/s. Navkar Jewellers during Assessment Year 2015-16.He would further submit that information was received on theInsight Portal as High-Risk CRIU/VRU information (NO PANCase) and consequently, notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act was issued on 10.04.2023 after getting approval from thecompetent authority dated 06.04.2023 and same was set asidesubmit that during the survey under Section 133A of the IncomeTax Act on Pagaria Group, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, one Mohit Jainwas found along with the cash amounting to Rs.33,00,000/- on11.04.2019 and his statement was recorded on the same datewhere he stated that M/s. K.R. Jewellers, Raipur is involved inthe trading of bullion and the seized amount was the saleproceeds of bullion of the last two days. Mr. Mohit Jain furtheradmitted that he purchased bullion from M/s. Navkar Jewellers,M/s. Sumit Jewelers, M/s. K.D. Jewelers and M/s. AnupJewellers. It is further admitted by this witness that though smallcash bills were prepared but actually no such bullion waspurchased or sold. He would further submit that the cash saleswere repeatedly entered by M/s. Navkar Jewellers in its books ofaccounts during the Financial Year 2015-16. In the books ofaccounts of M/s. Navkar Jewellers during Financial Year 2015-16, name of M/s. Saheli Jewellers has been entered pertaining toan order of Rs.60,33,02,548/- and thus, M/s. Saheli Jewellershas shown bogus purchases amounting to Rs.60,33,02,548/-from M/s. Navkar Jewellers during Assessment Year 2015-16.He would further submit that information was received on theInsight Portal as High-Risk CRIU/VRU information (NO PANCase) and consequently, notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act was issued on 10.04.2023 after getting approval from thecompetent authority dated 06.04.2023 and same was set aside by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 in WPT No.119 of2023. He would further submit that the notice under Section148A (b) of the Income Tax Act was issued on 15.05.2023 alongwith the complete information received on the Insight Portal ofITBA and in turn, the petitioner filed his written submission on19.05.2023. It is further argued that during that period, thepetitioner moved an application to supply certain documents andall the documents available on the Insight Portal of ITBA weresupplied to the petitioner. Approval was sought from CCIT,Raipur and the same was accorded on 27.03.2023 to issue amanual notice under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act.Thereafter, an order under Section 148A (d) of the Income TaxAct was passed and a notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act was issued to the petitioner. He would also submit thataccording to Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, nocommunication shall be issued by any income tax authorityrelating to assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise,exemption etc. to the assessee or any other person on or afterthe 1st day of October 2019 unless a computer generatedDocument Identification Number (DIN) has been allotted. Hisnext contention is that according to a memorandum dated20.02.2023 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry ofFinance, Government of India automation is to be done facelessand thereafter a notice under Section 148 of the Income Act is tobe issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer according to theprovisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act. 7)Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance uponthe judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thematter of Raymond Woollen Mills Limited Vs. Income TaxOfficer, Centre XI, Range Bombay & Others, reported in 2008(14) SCC 218, and the judgments passed by this Court in thematters of M/s. Precision Engineering and another Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, WritAppeal No.336 of 2019 and Hariom Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. andanother Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle2(1), Bilaspur, Writ Appeal No.399/2019. He would submit thatwhen the procedural requirements are satisfied and theinference drawn is based on the relevant materials, the HighCourt can't exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India. the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thematter of Raymond Woollen Mills Limited Vs. Income TaxOfficer, Centre XI, Range Bombay & Others, reported in 2008(14) SCC 218, and the judgments passed by this Court in thematters of M/s. Precision Engineering and another Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, WritAppeal No.336 of 2019 and Hariom Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. andanother Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle2(1), Bilaspur, Writ Appeal No.399/2019. He would submit thatwhen the procedural requirements are satisfied and theinference drawn is based on the relevant materials, the HighCourt can't exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India. 8)In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatno evidence or material was supplied to the assessee by therespondents. The petitioner is maintaining regular books ofaccounts. The purchases from M/s. Navkar Jewellers arerecorded in the books of accounts of the petitioner. Therespondents have not provided any material or evidence to showthe extent of transactions. In pursuance of the order passed bythis Court in WPT No.119/2023, the respondents have notfollowed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thematter of Ashish Agrawal (supra). It is also stated that if someentries are found in the record of Pagaria Group, then on thebasis of such entries, the petitioner cannot be implicated andno evidence or material was supplied to the assessee by therespondents. The petitioner is maintaining regular books ofaccounts. The purchases from M/s. Navkar Jewellers arerecorded in the books of accounts of the petitioner. Therespondents have not provided any material or evidence to showthe extent of transactions. In pursuance of the order passed bythis Court in WPT No.119/2023, the respondents have notfollowed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thematter of Ashish Agrawal (supra). It is also stated that if someentries are found in the record of Pagaria Group, then on thebasis of such entries, the petitioner cannot be implicated and held responsible. He would further submit that according to therespondents, they have treated the petitioner’s case as a Non-PAN case, whereas in the order passed under Section 148A (d)of the Income Tax Act dated 10.04.2023, it is specificallymentioned that the assessee has filed return of the income on10.10.2016 showing total income of Rs.88,80,040/- and thus, therespondents have taken a contrary stand. He would furthersubmit that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thematter of Raymond Woolen Mills Limited (Supra) would notapply in the present case as that case is in the backdrop of oldSections 147 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, whereas Section148A of the Income Tax Act has been introduced in the IncomeTax Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 9)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thedocuments. documents. 10)Section 148A has been introduced in the Income Tax Act from01.04.2021. This Section says that before issuing notice, theAssessing Officer shall conduct an inquiry and provide anopportunity of being heard to the assessee. After taking intoconsideration the reply filed by the assessee, the AssessingOfficer shall decide by passing an order, whether the case is fitfor issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Actand a certified copy of such order passed under Section 148 (A)(d) of the Income Tax Act along with such notice have to beserved upon the assessee. The limitation for issuance of noticeunder Section 148 is provided in Section 149 of the Income Tax01.04.2021. This Section says that before issuing notice, theAssessing Officer shall conduct an inquiry and provide anopportunity of being heard to the assessee. After taking intoconsideration the reply filed by the assessee, the AssessingOfficer shall decide by passing an order, whether the case is fitfor issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Actand a certified copy of such order passed under Section 148 (A)(d) of the Income Tax Act along with such notice have to beserved upon the assessee. The limitation for issuance of noticeunder Section 148 is provided in Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. In normal cases, no notice shall be issued if three yearshave elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.Notice beyond the period of three years from the end of therelevant assessment year can be issued where the AssessingOfficer would not be in possession of books of accounts or otherdocuments or evidence which would reveal that the incomechargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which hasescaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to fiftylacs rupees or more for that year. In such cases, notice can beissued beyond the period of three years but not beyond theperiod of 10 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act can be issuedwhen there is information with the Assessing Officer whichsuggests that the income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment in the case of an assessee for the relevantassessment year. The specified authority for approving inquiries,providing an opportunity forpassing orders under Section 148 ofthe Income Tax Act and for issuance of notice under Section 148of the Income Tax Act is the Principal Commissioner or PrincipalDirector or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less thanthree years have elapsed from the end of the relevantassessment year or Principal Chief Commissioner or PrincipalDirector General or Chief Commissioner or Director General ifmore than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevantassessment year. 11)In the present case, the Assessing Officer found that during Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner has shown boguspurchases amounting to Rs.60,33,02,548/- from M/s. NavkarJewellers, Durg (C.G.). Information was received on the InsightPortal of ITBA. A show cause notice under Section 148A (b) ofthe Income Tax Act was issued on 27.03.2023 after obtainingapproval from CCIT, Raipur. The written submission was filed bythe petitioner on 19.05.2023. The petitioner in reply took a standthat the statement of Mohit Jain is contradictory and it cannot beused against the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed bythis Court in WPT No.119 of 2023, complete information receivedon Insight Portal was served upon the petitioner on 15.05.2023and further, the reply was filed by the petitioner on 26.05.2023,wherein, it was submitted that basis of order and notice i.e. billsof bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 60,33,02,548/- from M/s.Navkar Jewelers during Financial Year 2015-16 have not beenprovided and information in this regard has also not beensupplied. 12)Now it would be advantageous to deal with the judgments citedby the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the matter of AshishAgrawal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down theprocedure to be adopted under the newly added Section 148A ofthe Income Tax Act. The relevant paras are as under:- “25.1 The respective impugned section 148 noticesissued to the respective assessees shall be deemed tohave been issued under section 148Aof the IT Act assubstituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to beshowcause notices in terms of section 148A(b). Therespective assessing officers shall within thirty days fromtoday provide to the assessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that theassessees can reply to the notices within two weeksthereafter; 25.2The requirement of conducting any enquiry withthe prior approval of the specified authority under section148A(a)be dispensed with as a onetime measure visàvisthose notices which have been issued under Section 148of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, includingthose which have been quashed by the High Courts; 25.3The assessing officers shall thereafter pass anorder in terms of section 148A(d)after following the dueprocedure as required under section 148A(b)in respectof each of the concerned assessees; material relied upon by the Revenue so that theassessees can reply to the notices within two weeksthereafter; 25.2The requirement of conducting any enquiry withthe prior approval of the specified authority under section148A(a)be dispensed with as a onetime measure visàvisthose notices which have been issued under Section 148of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, includingthose which have been quashed by the High Courts; 25.3The assessing officers shall thereafter pass anorder in terms of section 148A(d)after following the dueprocedure as required under section 148A(b)in respectof each of the concerned assessees; 25.4All the defences which may be available to theassessee under section 149and/or which may beavailable under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law andwhatever rights are available to the Assessing Officerunder the Finance Act, 2021 are kept open and/or shallcontinue to be available and; 25.5The present order shall substitute/modifyrespective judgments and orders passed by therespective High Courts quashing the similar noticesissued under unamended section 148 of the IT Actirrespective of whether they have been assailed beforethis Court or not. 28.In view of the above and for the reasons statedabove, the present Appeals are allowed in part. Theimpugned common judgments and orders passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No.524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/arehereby modified and substituted as under: 28.1The impugned section 148notices issued to therespective assessees which were issued underunamended section 148of the IT Act, which were thesubject matter of writ petitions before the variousrespective High Courts shall be deemed to have beenissued undersection 148Aof the IT Act as substituted bythe Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to beshowcause notices in terms of section 148A(b). Theassessing officer shall, within thirty days from todayprovide to the respective assessees information andmaterial relied upon by the Revenue, so that theassesees can reply to the showcause notices within two weeks thereafter; 28.2The requirement of conducting any enquiry, ifrequired, with the prior approval of specified authorityunder section 148A(a)is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure visàvis those notices which have beenissued under section 148 of the unamended Act from01.04.2021 till date, including those which have beenquashed by the High Courts. 28.3Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holdingany enquiry with the prior approval of specified authorityis not mandatory but it is for the concerned AssessingOfficers to hold any enquiry, if required; 28.4The assessing officers shall thereafter pass ordersin terms of section 148A(d)in respect of each of theconcerned assessees; Thereafter after following theprocedure as required under section 148Amay issuenotice under section 148(as substituted); 28.5All defences which may be available to theassesses including those available under section 149ofthe IT Act and all rights and contentions which may beavailable to the concerned assessees and Revenueunder the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue tobe available. ” 13)In the matter of Red Chilli International Sales (supra), theHon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of reopeningunder the Income Tax Act, 1961 have undergone an amendmentby the Finance Act, 2021 and consequently the matter wouldrequire a deeper and in-depth consideration keeping in view theearlier case law. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court setaside the order passed by the High Court and held that thepetition would be maintainable and the issue would be examinedin depth by the High Court if and when it arises forconsideration. 13)In the matter of Red Chilli International Sales (supra), theHon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of reopeningunder the Income Tax Act, 1961 have undergone an amendmentby the Finance Act, 2021 and consequently the matter wouldrequire a deeper and in-depth consideration keeping in view theearlier case law. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court setaside the order passed by the High Court and held that thepetition would be maintainable and the issue would be examinedin depth by the High Court if and when it arises forconsideration. 14)In the matter of Shri Pukhraj Soni (supra), the Hon’ble SupremeCourt held that the incriminating materials in the form of randomsheets, loose papers, computer prints, hard disk and pen driveetc. are inadmissible in evidence.Court held that the incriminating materials in the form of randomsheets, loose papers, computer prints, hard disk and pen driveetc. are inadmissible in evidence. 15)In the matter of Sita Ram Gautam (supra), the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh held that when the quantum of Incomeescaped by the assessee is alleged to be less than Rs.50 lacs,no order could be passed under Section 148A(d) of the IncomeTax Act.Madhya Pradesh held that when the quantum of Incomeescaped by the assessee is alleged to be less than Rs.50 lacs,no order could be passed under Section 148A(d) of the IncomeTax Act. 16)Now coming to the judgments cited by learned counsel for therespondents. In the matters of Gian Castings Private LimitedVs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, CWP No.9142of 2022 dated 02.06.2022, and Anshul Jain Vs. PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax and another, CWP 10219 of2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh whiledealing with a similar issue held that where the proceedingshave not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writCourt should not interfere at such premature stage. It is furtherheld that it is not a case where from a bare reading of notice itcan be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched uponthe jurisdiction not vested in it. The correctness of order underSection 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act is being challenged onthe factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vestedhas been wrongly exercised. There is a vexed distinctionbetween jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within thejurisdiction and for rectification or errors statutory remedy hasrespondents. In the matters of Gian Castings Private LimitedVs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others, CWP No.9142of 2022 dated 02.06.2022, and Anshul Jain Vs. PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax and another, CWP 10219 of2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh whiledealing with a similar issue held that where the proceedingshave not even been concluded by the statutory authority, the writCourt should not interfere at such premature stage. It is furtherheld that it is not a case where from a bare reading of notice itcan be axiomatically held that the authority has clutched uponthe jurisdiction not vested in it. The correctness of order underSection 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act is being challenged onthe factual premise contending that jurisdiction though vestedhas been wrongly exercised. There is a vexed distinctionbetween jurisdictional error and error of law/fact within thejurisdiction and for rectification or errors statutory remedy has been provided. The order passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSLP(C) No.10762 of 2022 order dated 17.06.2022 and SLPNo.14823/2022 order dated 02.09.2022 respectively. 17)The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in thematter of Barbrik Projects Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others,passed in Writ Appeal No.473 of 2022, dated 15.12.2022whiledealing with a similar issue in paras. 31(12), 32 & 33 observedas under : been provided. The order passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSLP(C) No.10762 of 2022 order dated 17.06.2022 and SLPNo.14823/2022 order dated 02.09.2022 respectively. 17)The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in thematter of Barbrik Projects Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others,passed in Writ Appeal No.473 of 2022, dated 15.12.2022whiledealing with a similar issue in paras. 31(12), 32 & 33 observedas under : “31(12). After considering the reply of theassesse and data available on the record, it iswell settled that the assessee has madetransactions of Rs.2,20,00,275/- during the FY2017-18 in form of bogus purchase from theM/s. Panveer Trading Private Limited who areinvolved in providing of accommodation entriesin form of bogus sale/purchase for commission.The assessee is the beneficiary company in thiscase and the above transaction where no goodswere transferred from the seller to purchaser.Only entries have been made in the books. Bymaking accommodation entries the assesseehas raised bogus expenditure in terms of boguspurchase. Thus, the amount of purchase madefrom the above parties of Rs. 2,20,00,275/- hasescaped assessment during the AY 2018-19.The information suggests that the incomechargeable to tax has escaped assessment byRs. 2,20,00,275/-….” 32. There is, prima facie, some material on thebasis of which the Department could reopen thecase. The petitioner had not even made anattempt to assert that the material facts relied onin the SCN is erroneous. 33. In view of the above, we are of the opinionthat no interference is called for with the order ofthe learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writpetition is dismissed.” 18) Now coming to the facts of the present case, in light of thejudgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is quite vividthat in the matter of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court has dealt with the new provision of Section 147to 151 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that w.e.f.01.04.2021 the law has been amended and has laid down theprocedure which has to be adopted by the authorities. In thematter of Red Chilli International Sales (supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court has held that the writ petition is maintainable forconsideration of the matter in depth. In the matter of ShriPukhraj Soni (supra), old provisions have been dealt with and inthe matter of Sita Ram Gautam (supra), it is held that noticeunder Section 148 of the amended Income Tax Act cannot beissued when the quantum of income escaped is less than 50 lacsand thus, the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitionerare of no help.judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is quite vividthat in the matter of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court has dealt with the new provision of Section 147to 151 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that w.e.f.01.04.2021 the law has been amended and has laid down theprocedure which has to be adopted by the authorities. In thematter of Red Chilli International Sales (supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court has held that the writ petition is maintainable forconsideration of the matter in depth. In the matter of ShriPukhraj Soni (supra), old provisions have been dealt with and inthe matter of Sita Ram Gautam (supra), it is held that noticeunder Section 148 of the amended Income Tax Act cannot beissued when the quantum of income escaped is less than 50 lacsand thus, the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitionerare of no help. 19)At the same time, the respondents have cited certain judgmentspassed by the various High Courts and some of them have beenaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it is categoricallyheld that if there is no procedural fault, the Writ Court should notinterfere at such premature stage when the proceeding initiatedagainst the assessee are yet to be concluded by the statutoryauthority and in one of the decisions passed by the DivisionBench of this Court it was held that the bogus purchases can bemade basis for issuance of notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act and the said writ petition preferred by thepassed by the various High Courts and some of them have beenaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it is categoricallyheld that if there is no procedural fault, the Writ Court should notinterfere at such premature stage when the proceeding initiatedagainst the assessee are yet to be concluded by the statutoryauthority and in one of the decisions passed by the DivisionBench of this Court it was held that the bogus purchases can bemade basis for issuance of notice under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act and the said writ petition preferred by the assessee was dismissed. 20)In view of the above, it is quite vivid that the documents havebeen supplied to the petitioner in pursuance of the order passedby this Court in WPT No.119 of 2023; thereafter notice wasissued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act; the replywas filed by the petitioner; thereafter the order was passedunder Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and at the sametime, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued;the matter is still pending before the authority and the petitionerhas sufficient opportunity to take all defences available to him, inthat view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interferewith the order passed by the authorities under Section 148A(d)and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.been supplied to the petitioner in pursuance of the order passedby this Court in WPT No.119 of 2023; thereafter notice wasissued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act; the replywas filed by the petitioner; thereafter the order was passedunder Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and at the sametime, notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued;the matter is still pending before the authority and the petitionerhas sufficient opportunity to take all defences available to him, inthat view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interferewith the order passed by the authorities under Section 148A(d)and notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge