Dinesh Kumar Goyal (HUF) v. ITO (2024) 337 CTR 592 / 161 taxmann.com 584 (Cal) (HC) Editorial : Dinesh Kumar Goyal (HUF) v. ITO (2024) 337 CTR 595/ 235 DTR 316(Ca)(HC) is set aside; Shyam Sundar Dhanuka v UOI (APOT No. 187 of 2023, dt 30th Aug., 2023 (Cal)(HC)) distinguished

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Cash deposits-Information has been received through insight portal regarding cash deposits, interest receipts, purchase of debentures, etc-No tangible material placed by the AO to show that there was escapement of income from the payment of income-tax-Order and notice is quashed and set aside.[S. 148,148A(b), 148A(d) Art. 226]

Assesse was issued abstand that credible information has been received through insight portal regarding cash deposits, interest receipts, purchase of debentures, etc Annexure to the notice is an extract of the relevant particulars which find place in the return of income filed by the assessee for the relevant assessment year In the impugned order passed under s. 148A(d) there are glaring omissions and more particularly the condition precedent for exercise of the power of reopening the assessment are conspicuously absent-Though the order appears to be an elaborate order, the conclusion is only in one paragraph-For the purpose of reopening an assessment there should be a tangible material placed by the AO to show that there was escapement of income from the payment of income-tax-This being conspicuously absent as could be seen from the annexure to the show-cause notice the reopening proceedings have to be held to be bad in law-Therefore, order passed under s. 148A(d) and the consequential notice under 148 are quashed.  (AY. 2017-18)