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?
Yes, on these facts. The Court held that the order under s.148A and the notice under s.148 were passed without application of mind, quashed and set aside both, and remanded the matter. The officer had simply repeated the allegation of non-response while ignoring the purchase invoices, bank statements and ledger confirmations filed with the reply.
Decided by the High Court (A.S. Supehia J and Pranav Trivedi J) on 2025-11-17, reported as R/Special Civil Application No. 7481 of 2023. It bears on section 133(6), section 148A, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
A supposed failure to answer a s.133(6) notice is a standard opening line in reassessment orders. This is recent authority that the line cannot carry the order by itself where the assessee has in fact produced the underlying material and says the notice never reached him.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A show-cause notice under s.148A(b) alleged non-genuine transactions and recorded that the petitioner had failed to respond to a notice under s.133(6). The petitioner replied that he had never received any notice under s.133(6) to which he could file a response, and filed purchase invoices, bank statements and ledger confirmations with his reply. The order under s.148A and the notice under s.148 followed, reiterating the non-response allegation.
The petition was allowed. The impugned order and the notice issued under s.148 were quashed and set aside as passed without application of mind, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration within twelve weeks, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the uncontroverted documentary evidence already submitted.
The Court looked at what the officer had done with the reply. The documentary evidence produced with it went directly to the genuineness of the transactions and was not controverted. Instead of addressing it, the order reiterated the allegation that the petitioner had not responded to the s.133(6) notice. An order which repeats its own premise while leaving the answer to it unexamined is not the product of the application of mind the provision requires, and cannot stand. The proper course was to set it aside and require the exercise to be done again on the material actually before the officer.
the impugned order as well as the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is passed without application of mind
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 WhatsAppYes, on these facts. The Court held that the order under s.148A and the notice under s.148 were passed without application of mind, quashed and set aside both, and remanded the matter. The officer had simply repeated the allegation of non-response while ignoring the purchase invoices, bank statements and ledger confirmations filed with the reply. This was decided by the High Court (A.S. Supehia J and Pranav Trivedi J) and bears on section 133(6), section 148A, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as R/Special Civil Application No. 7481 of 2023. A supposed failure to answer a s.133(6) notice is a standard opening line in reassessment orders. This is recent authority that the line cannot carry the order by itself where the assessee has in fact produced the underlying material and says the notice never reached him. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Say expressly, in the s.148A reply, that the s.133(6) notice was never served, and give the address and email on record.
A show-cause notice under s.148A(b) alleged non-genuine transactions and recorded that the petitioner had failed to respond to a notice under s.133(6). The petitioner replied that he had never received any notice under s.133(6) to which he could file a response, and filed purchase invoices, bank statements and ledger confirmations with his reply. The order under s.148A and the notice under s.148 followed, reiterating the non-response allegation. The matter was decided on 2025-11-17 by the High Court (A.S. Supehia J and Pranav Trivedi J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The petition was allowed. The impugned order and the notice issued under s.148 were quashed and set aside as passed without application of mind, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration within twelve weeks, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the uncontroverted documentary evidence already submitted.
The Court looked at what the officer had done with the reply. The documentary evidence produced with it went directly to the genuineness of the transactions and was not controverted. Instead of addressing it, the order reiterated the allegation that the petitioner had not responded to the s.133(6) notice. An order which repeats its own premise while leaving the answer to it unexamined is not the product of the application of mind the provision requires, and cannot stand. The proper course was to set it aside and require the exercise to be done again on the material actually before the officer. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the impugned order as well as the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is passed without application of mind"
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-11-17 and is reported as R/Special Civil Application No. 7481 of 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, 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 impugned order and the notice issued under s.148 were quashed and set aside as passed without application of mind, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration within twelve weeks, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the uncontroverted documentary evidence already submitted. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 133(6), section 148A, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by A.S. Supehia J and Pranav Trivedi 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. File the underlying documents with the reply rather than promising them - invoices, bank statements, ledger confirmations, as here. If the s.148A order repeats the non-response allegation without dealing with the documents, that repetition is the ground. Expect a remand rather than a discharge; prepare to answer the enquiry properly the second time.
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 was decided on 17 November 2025 and no later treatment would be expected yet. It runs with the Delhi High Court's decision in Krishna Diagnostic Pvt Ltd v ITO of 25 May 2023 on the officer's duty to engage with what the assessee has actually produced. 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 Court did not decide whether the s.133(6) notice had in fact been served; it proceeded on the failure to deal with the documents filed. Do not cite this as authority on service. The relief is a remand with a twelve-week timetable, so the reassessment enquiry continues. 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 impugned order and the notice issued under s.148 were quashed and set aside as passed without application of mind, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration within twelve weeks, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider the uncontroverted documentary evidence already submitted.
TaxSphere, “Rajeshkumar Uggamrajji Mehta v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/rajeshkumar-mehta-v-ito-133-6-notice-never-received-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 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?
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 High Court quashed my s.148 notice because the ward officer issued it instead of the faceless unit. Does that judgment still stand?
The High Court threw out my writ petition against a section 148 notice saying I had an alternative remedy. Was it right to refuse to hear me at all?
