The AO made no enquiry before issuing my 148A(b) notice. Does that kill the reopening?
No, on the Calcutta view. The Division Bench read the words 'if required' in s.148A(a) as giving the Assessing Officer a discretion, so the absence of a prior enquiry does not by itself vitiate the notice.
Decided by the High Court (Calcutta High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya) on 2024-01-17, reported as [2024] 158 taxmann.com 629 (Calcutta) / [2024] 297 Taxman 336 (Calcutta); 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 367; A.P.O. No. 124 of 2023 with IA No. GA/1/2023 (intra-court appeal). It bears on section 148A, section 148, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening matters.
This is a Calcutta High Court Division Bench decision and it binds in West Bengal, so it is the answer a Kolkata officer will give to the standard 'no enquiry was conducted' objection. It favours the revenue and is in the library for that reason: if you are running the enquiry point in a writ there, you need to know it exists. Two subsidiary rulings hurt as well - an email from the AO clarifying which assessment year the notice covered was held not to amend the notice, and repeated adjournment requests were read as an attempt to protract matters until the assessment became time-barred.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2016-17 the assessee company was issued a notice under s.148A(b) on 31 March 2023 after high-value cash deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation window were flagged. The annexure to the notice set out information the Department had received relating to three financial years, one of them a year for which reassessment proceedings had already been remanded to the Assessing Officer by an order of 15 March 2022 and in which an appeal was pending. The assessee objected on 20 April 2023 that several assessment years had been impermissibly clubbed into one notice, and the Assessing Officer replied by email the same day that what was called for was the detail of cash deposits in a named account during financial year 2015-16, relevant to assessment year 2016-17. The assessee took two adjournments, was given until 30 April 2023, and replied on merits on 29 April 2023. The order under s.148A(d) was passed on 7 May 2023. The assessee argued that the email amounted to an impermissible amendment of the notice, that no prior enquiry under s.148A(a) had been conducted, and that the reassessment was time barred. The writ petition, WPO No. 1294 of 2023, was dismissed by a single judge on 19 July 2023 and the assessee appealed.
The appeal was dismissed and the single judge's order of 19 July 2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023 was affirmed (paras 14 and 15). The Division Bench held that conducting an enquiry under s.148A(a) is not mandatory but discretionary, the provision using the words 'if required', so that where the Assessing Officer records that the information was specific and no enquiry was needed, that finding is not open to interference (para 13); and that the clarifying email of 20 April 2023 did not amend the notice of 31 March 2023, because although the information furnished covered three years the information called for pertained only to assessment year 2016-17 (para 11). It found the whole of the s.148A procedure, clauses (b), (c) and (d), to have been complied with and no error in the decision-making process (para 13). The assessee was directed to participate in the reassessment, which the Assessing Officer was to conduct expeditiously without granting any adjournment (para 16).
On the clubbing objection the Bench read the notice as a whole: the tabulated part on its first page pertained only to assessment year 2016-17, and although the annexure set out information the Department had received for three financial years, the reassessment proposed and the information called for related to that year alone; so the email of 20 April 2023, which asked for the detail of cash deposits in a named account during financial year 2015-16, clarified rather than amended the notice (para 11). On the enquiry point the Bench construed s.148A(a) itself: it requires the Assessing Officer to conduct an enquiry 'if required', with the prior approval of the specified authority, so the enquiry is discretionary and not a mandatory precondition; here the Assessing Officer had stated that the information was specific and that no enquiry was therefore needed, and that finding could not be called erroneous, which meant clause (a) simply did not apply to the case (para 13). The Bench then walked through clauses (b), (c) and (d) — a show-cause notice giving not less than seven days, consideration of the replies, and a reasoned order with the prior approval of the specified authority — and found each complied with, concluding that s.148A had been scrupulously followed and that there was no error in the decision-making process for the Court to interfere. It also recorded that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments in a way that showed an attempt to drag the matter knowing the assessment would become time barred, while the Assessing Officer had been reasonable in accommodating those requests (para 12).
Thus, the provision of the Section 148A of the Act has been scrupulously followed by the assessing officer and there is no error in the decision-making process of this court to interfere.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, on the Calcutta view. The Division Bench read the words 'if required' in s.148A(a) as giving the Assessing Officer a discretion, so the absence of a prior enquiry does not by itself vitiate the notice. This was decided by the High Court (Calcutta High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya) and bears on section 148A, section 148, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2024] 158 taxmann.com 629 (Calcutta) / [2024] 297 Taxman 336 (Calcutta); 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 367; A.P.O. No. 124 of 2023 with IA No. GA/1/2023 (intra-court appeal). This is a Calcutta High Court Division Bench decision and it binds in West Bengal, so it is the answer a Kolkata officer will give to the standard 'no enquiry was conducted' objection. It favours the revenue and is in the library for that reason: if you are running the enquiry point in a writ there, you need to know it exists. Two subsidiary rulings hurt as well - an email from the AO clarifying which assessment year the notice covered was held not to amend the notice, and repeated adjournment requests were read as an attempt to protract matters until the assessment became time-barred. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not build a West Bengal writ on the absence of a s.148A(a) enquiry alone; attack the sufficiency of the information and the application of mind in the s.148A(d) order instead.
For assessment year 2016-17 the assessee company was issued a notice under s.148A(b) on 31 March 2023 after high-value cash deposits in a bank account during the demonetisation window were flagged. The annexure to the notice set out information the Department had received relating to three financial years, one of them a year for which reassessment proceedings had already been remanded to the Assessing Officer by an order of 15 March 2022 and in which an appeal was pending. The assessee objected on 20 April 2023 that several assessment years had been impermissibly clubbed into one notice, and the Assessing Officer replied by email the same day that what was called for was the detail of cash deposits in a named account during financial year 2015-16, relevant to assessment year 2016-17. The assessee took two adjournments, was given until 30 April 2023, and replied on merits on 29 April 2023. The order under s.148A(d) was passed on 7 May 2023. The assessee argued that the email amounted to an impermissible amendment of the notice, that no prior enquiry under s.148A(a) had been conducted, and that the reassessment was time barred. The writ petition, WPO No. 1294 of 2023, was dismissed by a single judge on 19 July 2023 and the assessee appealed. The matter was decided on 2024-01-17 by the High Court (Calcutta High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed and the single judge's order of 19 July 2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023 was affirmed (paras 14 and 15). The Division Bench held that conducting an enquiry under s.148A(a) is not mandatory but discretionary, the provision using the words 'if required', so that where the Assessing Officer records that the information was specific and no enquiry was needed, that finding is not open to interference (para 13); and that the clarifying email of 20 April 2023 did not amend the notice of 31 March 2023, because although the information furnished covered three years the information called for pertained only to assessment year 2016-17 (para 11). It found the whole of the s.148A procedure, clauses (b), (c) and (d), to have been complied with and no error in the decision-making process (para 13). The assessee was directed to participate in the reassessment, which the Assessing Officer was to conduct expeditiously without granting any adjournment (para 16).
On the clubbing objection the Bench read the notice as a whole: the tabulated part on its first page pertained only to assessment year 2016-17, and although the annexure set out information the Department had received for three financial years, the reassessment proposed and the information called for related to that year alone; so the email of 20 April 2023, which asked for the detail of cash deposits in a named account during financial year 2015-16, clarified rather than amended the notice (para 11). On the enquiry point the Bench construed s.148A(a) itself: it requires the Assessing Officer to conduct an enquiry 'if required', with the prior approval of the specified authority, so the enquiry is discretionary and not a mandatory precondition; here the Assessing Officer had stated that the information was specific and that no enquiry was therefore needed, and that finding could not be called erroneous, which meant clause (a) simply did not apply to the case (para 13). The Bench then walked through clauses (b), (c) and (d) — a show-cause notice giving not less than seven days, consideration of the replies, and a reasoned order with the prior approval of the specified authority — and found each complied with, concluding that s.148A had been scrupulously followed and that there was no error in the decision-making process for the Court to interfere. It also recorded that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments in a way that showed an attempt to drag the matter knowing the assessment would become time barred, while the Assessing Officer had been reasonable in accommodating those requests (para 12). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Thus, the provision of the Section 148A of the Act has been scrupulously followed by the assessing officer and there is no error in the decision-making process of this court to interfere."
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-01-17 and is reported as [2024] 158 taxmann.com 629 (Calcutta) / [2024] 297 Taxman 336 (Calcutta); 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 367; A.P.O. No. 124 of 2023 with IA No. GA/1/2023 (intra-court appeal). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 148A, section 148, section 147, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed and the single judge's order of 19 July 2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023 was affirmed (paras 14 and 15). The Division Bench held that conducting an enquiry under s.148A(a) is not mandatory but discretionary, the provision using the words 'if required', so that where the Assessing Officer records that the information was specific and no enquiry was needed, that finding is not open to interference (para 13); and that the clarifying email of 20 April 2023 did not amend the notice of 31 March 2023, because although the information furnished covered three years the information called for pertained only to assessment year 2016-17 (para 11). It found the whole of the s.148A procedure, clauses (b), (c) and (d), to have been complied with and no error in the decision-making process (para 13). The assessee was directed to participate in the reassessment, which the Assessing Officer was to conduct expeditiously without granting any adjournment (para 16). It arises in Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 148A, section 148, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Calcutta High Court, Division Bench — Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. If the annexure to your notice spans several assessment years, get the officer to confirm in writing which year is actually in issue and put that confirmation on record. Answer within the time given and avoid a run of adjournment applications, which the Bench read against the assessee. Participate in the reassessment while keeping your jurisdictional objection recorded in each reply.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No later decision applying, following or affirming this judgment was found, and the report carries no citator banner, so nothing is known of any special leave petition. The judgment's own case review records that it affirmed the single judge's order of 19 July 2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023, which is treatment of the order below rather than of this one. The one later judgment traced that cites it is Onir Infraspace (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 168 taxmann.com 21 (Gujarat), 1 October 2024, where the Revenue relied on this decision at para 6.3 and the Gujarat High Court nonetheless decided for the assessee, holding that a notice calling for details for verification is in substance an enquiry under s.148A(a); the case review of that judgment records only Safal Constructions India (P.) Ltd. as followed. A special leave petition against Onir Infraspace was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27 October 2025, without reasons beyond finding no good ground to interfere — ITO v. Onir Infraspace (P.) Ltd. [2025] 180 taxmann.com 286 (SC). So this decision has been cited and not applied at least once, and absence of contrary authority is not later approval. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The date question is settled: this Division Bench judgment in the intra-court appeal, A.P.O. No. 124 of 2023 with IA No. GA/1/2023, was delivered on 17 January 2024, and the order it affirms is the single judge's order of 19 July 2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023 — which is the earlier order that the differently numbered digest citation belongs to. It is reported at [2024] 158 taxmann.com 629 and [2024] 297 Taxman 336. Read the holding narrowly. The Court did not say that an enquiry under s.148A(a) is never required; it said the enquiry is discretionary because the clause reads 'if required', and it upheld this notice because the Assessing Officer had recorded that the information was specific so that no enquiry was needed, a finding the Court would not call erroneous. On that footing it held clause (a) inapplicable to the case and then checked compliance with clauses (b), (c) and (d) one by one. The relief is also worth noting: the appeal was dismissed and the assessee directed to participate in the reassessment, which was to be completed expeditiously and without any adjournment. The judgment does not identify which three financial years the annexure covered, beyond the year in issue and one year in which an appeal was pending and reassessment had been remanded by an order of 15 March 2022, so the entry cannot list them. The report carries no citator banner and no special leave petition against this decision was traced, so what has become of it is not known. The judgment as printed says s.148A was inserted by the Finance Act 2021 with effect from 1 April 2023, which is a slip for 1 April 2021; do not carry that date across. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed and the single judge's order of 19 July 2023 in WPO No. 1294 of 2023 was affirmed (paras 14 and 15). The Division Bench held that conducting an enquiry under s.148A(a) is not mandatory but discretionary, the provision using the words 'if required', so that where the Assessing Officer records that the information was specific and no enquiry was needed, that finding is not open to interference (para 13); and that the clarifying email of 20 April 2023 did not amend the notice of 31 March 2023, because although the information furnished covered three years the information called for pertained only to assessment year 2016-17 (para 11). It found the whole of the s.148A procedure, clauses (b), (c) and (d), to have been complied with and no error in the decision-making process (para 13). The assessee was directed to participate in the reassessment, which the Assessing Officer was to conduct expeditiously without granting any adjournment (para 16).
TaxSphere, “Champa Impex P Ltd v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/champa-impex-v-uoi-148a-enquiry/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
What happened to the thousands of s.148 notices issued under the old rules after the law changed in 2021?
Your notice was issued in the 1 April to 30 June 2021 window. Was it saved by TOLA, or is it dead?
My 148A(b) notice describes an enquiry but nothing was attached. Can I insist on the material?
Your APA year has been reopened and the officer has himself re-examined whether you complied with the APA. Can he do that without a compliance audit by the Transfer Pricing Officer?
