Allowing the petition the Court held that the order passed under section 148A(d) was unsustainable because the initial notice issued under section 148A(b) did not call upon the assessee to provide any justification on any transaction in question. The entire basis for issuing the notice under section 148A(b) was that the assessee was a non-filer for the assessment year 2019-20 and that since he had failed to file the return of income, the income from salary and purchase of securities had not been declared or offered for taxation. But the fact was that the assessee had filed his return of income, had paid tax and had also claimed refund. Therefore, the order under section 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment under section 147 were quashed and set aside. Court also held that even the notice under section 148A(b) was unjustified because, in terms of the guidelines dated August 1, 2022 before issuing the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer was bound at least to verify or enquire following the information that was received in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy. If the Assessing Officer had verified in the portal of the assessee before initiating proceedings, when he had the permanent account number with him, he would have realised that not only had the assessee filed the return of income, but also that it had been processed and an order under section 143(1) had been passed. Therefore, the initial notice issued under section 148A(b) was also quashed and set aside. (AY.2019-20)