The s.148A(d) order ignores the reply I gave to a s.133(6) notice two years ago. If I take it to the High Court, does the reassessment end - or does it start again?
It starts again, from the show-cause stage. The Court set aside the order dated 28 July 2022 under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice under s.148 of the same date, where the assessee had already told the officer, in answer to a s.133(6) notice, that the property had been purchased and not sold, and the reopening proceeded on the footing that it had been sold. Facts of that kind, already on the file, could not be given short shrift. The s.148A(b) notice of 19 May 2022 was not set aside - the Court recorded that no specific prayer had been made against it - and the officer was directed to go back to the stage prior to it.
Decided by the High Court (Rajiv Shakdher J and Girish Kathpalia J) on 2023-05-25, reported as W.P.(C) 7266/2023. It bears on section 133(6), section 148A, section 148, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the practical value of answering a s.133(6) notice carefully and keeping proof of the answer: the reply becomes material on the department's own record, and a reopening that contradicts it is vulnerable. It is the closest authority to the proposition that the officer must engage with what the s.133(6) reply says. It is equally important for what it does not give: the show-cause notice survives, so the relief is a fresh run at the s.148A stage and not the end of the matter.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner was served with a notice under s.133(6) dated 25 March 2021 and replied on 22 April 2021, stating clearly that it had purchased, and not sold, the property in question, of a value of Rs 8 crores. On 19 May 2022 a notice under s.148A(b) was issued alleging that the petitioner had sold the property, and an order followed on 28 July 2022.
The petition was allowed. The order dated 28 July 2022 passed under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice of even date under s.148 were set aside. The notice under s.148A(b) dated 19 May 2022 was not set aside: the Court expressly recorded that the petitioner had made no specific prayer with regard to it, and directed instead that if the Assessing Officer chose to reassess the petitioner he was to commence from the stage prior to the issuance of that notice. The Court recorded its surprise that the s.148A(b) notice alleged a sale despite the information having been supplied by the petitioner as far back as 22 April 2021 (para 12), and held that these were material facts which could not have been given short shrift.
The Court treated the s.133(6) reply as part of the record before the officer. Having called for the information and received it, the officer could not proceed to reopen on a premise the information contradicted; the reopening missed the most crucial part of the transaction, that it was a purchase and not a sale. The failure to deal with material of that kind is a failure of the exercise the s.148A procedure requires. The remedy was fitted to the defect rather than to the whole proceeding: what fell was the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice that issued on it, and, the show-cause notice itself not having been prayed against, the direction was that any reassessment recommence from the stage before that notice, leaving the officer free to proceed properly if he chose.
In our view, these are facts which are material, and could not have been given a short shrift, as has been done by the AO.
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 WhatsAppIt starts again, from the show-cause stage. The Court set aside the order dated 28 July 2022 under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice under s.148 of the same date, where the assessee had already told the officer, in answer to a s.133(6) notice, that the property had been purchased and not sold, and the reopening proceeded on the footing that it had been sold. Facts of that kind, already on the file, could not be given short shrift. The s.148A(b) notice of 19 May 2022 was not set aside - the Court recorded that no specific prayer had been made against it - and the officer was directed to go back to the stage prior to it. This was decided by the High Court (Rajiv Shakdher J and Girish Kathpalia J) and bears on section 133(6), section 148A, section 148, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 7266/2023. This is the practical value of answering a s.133(6) notice carefully and keeping proof of the answer: the reply becomes material on the department's own record, and a reopening that contradicts it is vulnerable. It is the closest authority to the proposition that the officer must engage with what the s.133(6) reply says. It is equally important for what it does not give: the show-cause notice survives, so the relief is a fresh run at the s.148A stage and not the end of the matter. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Answer every s.133(6) notice in writing, state the nature of the transaction in terms, and keep the acknowledgement.
The petitioner was served with a notice under s.133(6) dated 25 March 2021 and replied on 22 April 2021, stating clearly that it had purchased, and not sold, the property in question, of a value of Rs 8 crores. On 19 May 2022 a notice under s.148A(b) was issued alleging that the petitioner had sold the property, and an order followed on 28 July 2022. The matter was decided on 2023-05-25 by the High Court (Rajiv Shakdher J and Girish Kathpalia J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The petition was allowed. The order dated 28 July 2022 passed under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice of even date under s.148 were set aside. The notice under s.148A(b) dated 19 May 2022 was not set aside: the Court expressly recorded that the petitioner had made no specific prayer with regard to it, and directed instead that if the Assessing Officer chose to reassess the petitioner he was to commence from the stage prior to the issuance of that notice. The Court recorded its surprise that the s.148A(b) notice alleged a sale despite the information having been supplied by the petitioner as far back as 22 April 2021 (para 12), and held that these were material facts which could not have been given short shrift.
The Court treated the s.133(6) reply as part of the record before the officer. Having called for the information and received it, the officer could not proceed to reopen on a premise the information contradicted; the reopening missed the most crucial part of the transaction, that it was a purchase and not a sale. The failure to deal with material of that kind is a failure of the exercise the s.148A procedure requires. The remedy was fitted to the defect rather than to the whole proceeding: what fell was the s.148A(d) order and the s.148 notice that issued on it, and, the show-cause notice itself not having been prayed against, the direction was that any reassessment recommence from the stage before that notice, leaving the officer free to proceed properly if he chose. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In our view, these are facts which are material, and could not have been given a short shrift, as has been done by the AO."
It was decided by the High Court on 2023-05-25 and is reported as W.P.(C) 7266/2023. 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 133(6), 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 taxpayer. The petition was allowed. The order dated 28 July 2022 passed under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice of even date under s.148 were set aside. The notice under s.148A(b) dated 19 May 2022 was not set aside: the Court expressly recorded that the petitioner had made no specific prayer with regard to it, and directed instead that if the Assessing Officer chose to reassess the petitioner he was to commence from the stage prior to the issuance of that notice. The Court recorded its surprise that the s.148A(b) notice alleged a sale despite the information having been supplied by the petitioner as far back as 22 April 2021 (para 12), and held that these were material facts which could not have been given short shrift. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 133(6), section 148A, section 148, section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Rajiv Shakdher J and Girish Kathpalia J. 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 a s.148A(b) notice arrives on a contrary premise, put the earlier reply and its date at the front of your response - that reply stage is where a court will send the officer back to. Ask in the s.148A reply for the material relied on and point to the reply already on the department's record. If the s.148A(d) order still ignores it, the ground to take is the failure to consider material already on the file, and the relief to ask for is that the s.148A(d) order and the consequential s.148 notice be set aside. Plan for the second round. Unless you challenge the s.148A(b) notice itself and specifically pray against it, the notice stands and the officer recommences from that stage; the allegation has to be met again on the merits.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this judgment was located. It is consistent with the Gujarat High Court's approach in Rajeshkumar Uggamrajji Mehta v ITO, decided 17 November 2025, where a s.148A order resting on a supposed failure to answer a s.133(6) notice was quashed for non-application of mind. 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.
This decides that the officer must deal with a s.133(6) reply the assessee itself has given, which is a narrower point than the one practitioners often want - whether the officer must supply a third party's s.133(6) reply that he relies on. No decision on that wider point was located. The relief was a remand to the pre-notice stage, not a bar on reassessment, so it buys a fresh start rather than an end to the matter. A check against the document corrected what was set aside: the entry had recorded the s.148A(b) notice of 19 May 2022 as set aside, whereas the operative paragraph sets aside only the s.148A(d) order of 28 July 2022 and the consequential notice of even date, and the Court expressly noted that no specific prayer had been made against the 19 May 2022 notice before directing the officer to go back to the stage prior to it. 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 petition was allowed. The order dated 28 July 2022 passed under s.148A(d) and the consequential notice of even date under s.148 were set aside. The notice under s.148A(b) dated 19 May 2022 was not set aside: the Court expressly recorded that the petitioner had made no specific prayer with regard to it, and directed instead that if the Assessing Officer chose to reassess the petitioner he was to commence from the stage prior to the issuance of that notice. The Court recorded its surprise that the s.148A(b) notice alleged a sale despite the information having been supplied by the petitioner as far back as 22 April 2021 (para 12), and held that these were material facts which could not have been given short shrift.
TaxSphere, “Krishna Diagnostic Pvt Ltd v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/krishna-diagnostic-v-ito-133-6-reply-already-on-record-148a/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
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.
The department says my purchases are bogus. Do the suppliers' returns and the input credit allowed on those invoices count for anything in the income-tax assessment?
The s.148A order says I failed to answer a s.133(6) notice I never received, and ignores the documents I did file. Is that enough to get it set aside?
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?
