Dismissing the petition the Court held that, if show-cause notice under section 148A (b) ought to be loaded with concise and precise information revealing foundational material which persuaded AO to come to a tentative finding that certain income had escaped assessment for relevant year and assessee had also filed a detailed reply to said notice, it was to be held that impugned order under section 148A(d) and consequential notice under section 148 had been issued/passed after following due process of law.  Court also held that A taxing statute is to be interpreted literally. There is no intendment to taxing statute and nothing can be implied from or read into a taxing statute. The words used in taxing statutory provision are required to be given their plain meaning Assessee is directed to avail alterntaive remedy.   The  Court also observed that, it is settled in tax jurisprudence  that taxing statute is to be interpreted literally. There is no intendment  to a  taxing statute. Nothing  can be implied from or read into a taxing statute.  The  words used in a taxing stautory  provision  are required to be  given in their plain meaning.  referred, Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT (2010) 326 ITR 624/ (2010) 8SCC 739(para 6)  Constitution Bench, Commissioner of Customs  v. Dilip Kumar  and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1  (para 24, 34), Dy. CIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd  (2018) 400 ITR 141 (Sc),(2018) 2 SCC 158,  Check Mate Services  Pvt Ltd  v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) /(2023) 6 SCC 451, (Also refer  CIT v. Kasturi and Sons Ltd (1999) 3 SCC 346, State of West Bengal v. Kersoram  Industries Ltd  (2004) 10 SCC 201).  (AY 2016-17).