Yes, and arguing otherwise will not work. Information in the assessee's case for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board is the first item on the statutory list of what counts as information suggesting escapement. What the classification is not is proof of escapement, and it is not the material the assessee is entitled to see.
The statutory list has moved but not changed in substance. For notices under the regime that ran from 1 April 2021 to 31 August 2024, Explanation 1 to s.148 provided that "information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" means (i) "any information in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time"; (ii) "any audit objection to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act"; (iii) "any information received under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A"; (iv) "any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under section 135A"; and (v) "any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court". Section 148 was substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2024 with effect from 1 September 2024, and the same list now sits in s.148(3), with the addition of a survey under s.133A carried out on or after 1 September 2024.
Two points follow for anyone answering a show-cause built on a portal entry. First, the risk management strategy limb is deliberately wide. The word "flagged" that once qualified it was dropped, and the commentary reads that omission as meaning that every item of information collected in accordance with the risk management strategy may be used to initiate reassessment, not only information the system has flagged. So the answer to "a portal alert is not information" is that Parliament has said it is.
Second, and this is where the real argument lies, the limb speaks of information in the case of the assessee - the underlying data - and not of the category the system has assigned to it. A risk classification is a routing decision inside the department: it says how a case has been ranked for attention. It says nothing about whether income has escaped, and nothing I could reach treats the classification itself as evidence of escapement. That distinction is what the assessee should be pressing. It is the reason the s.148A(b) notice has to be accompanied by the material rather than by the label - this library holds Charu Chains & Jewels, where the Delhi High Court set aside the s.148A(d) order because the underlying information had not been furnished, and Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust, where the Jharkhand High Court held the department duty-bound to supply all material information, the enquiry conducted and the supporting documents.
It is also the reason the portal entry has to be right. In Ankit Agarwal v. PCCIT the Patna High Court quashed the whole chain where the Insight Portal had flagged the assessee as a non-filer and the department's own records showed he had filed both his return and his tax audit report, and it declined to treat the recital as a "cut and paste" error. Where the premise of the flag is contradicted by the department's own record, there is nothing for the officer to be satisfied about.
And the officer's own satisfaction is a separate step from the existence of information. Section 148A(3) requires him to pass the order "on the basis of material available on record and taking into account the reply of the assessee", with prior approval. Where the return already discloses and explains the transaction the portal has picked up, the reply's job is to show that the material on record no longer suggests escapement - not to argue that the portal cannot generate information in the first place.
One more thing to check where the case has come through the faceless information route: s.148A does not apply at all where the officer has received the information under the scheme notified under s.135A, and in that situation s.148 requires prior approval of the specified authority for the notice. So identify which route the information came by before you build a reply around the s.148A procedure.
Practitioners lose time arguing that a portal alert is not information, which is a losing point on the statutory language, when the winnable points are that the flag is not the material, that the material has to be disclosed, and that the officer has to apply his mind to the reply rather than to the risk score. Framing the reply the second way also builds the record that a writ court will need if the s.148A(d) order simply repeats the flag.
The only thing behind my reopening notice is the Valuation Officer's report. Is that enough?
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
I made unexplained investments after the close of my accounting year. Which year can the officer tax them in, and can he reopen an earlier year to do it?
My land was notified and an award was made under the Land Acquisition Act, but I thought the award was too low, negotiated a higher figure and executed a sale deed. The Assessing Officer now says that was a voluntary sale and denies s.10(37). Is he right?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?
I placed all my primary facts before the officer and he dropped the proceedings. Can a later officer reopen the assessment because he takes a different view of those same facts?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.