Dismissing the petition the Court held that the Assessing Officer, before issuing any notice under section 148, shall conduct an enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of the specified authority. The words “if required” actually indicate a discretion under clause (a). The opening words of section 148A require the Assessing Officer to do a particular thing before issuing notice under section 148. The acts that are to be performed by the Assessing Officer would include conducting any enquiry, if required. Under clause (b), an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee. Clause (c) requires that the reply of the assessee has to be taken into account and clause (d) requires an order to be passed for forming an opinion that a notice under section 148 has to be issued, on the basis of the material available on record, which includes the reply of the assessee. Clause (b) cannot be read in isolation by ignoring clause (c).

If the conducting of an enquiry prior to issuing a show-cause notice under clause (b) of section 148A was the intent and object of the legislation, the words “if required” would not have been added to the words “conduct an enquiry” under clause (a). The Memorandum Explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 ([2021] 430 ITR (St.) 214) also indicates that before issuing a notice by the Assessing Officer under clause (b), section 148 proposes conducting of an enquiry, “if required”.

The Legislature had specifically excluded the words “and a personal hearing” in addition to the words appearing in clause (b) as “providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee”. Even clause (c) states that after considering his reply, the Assessing Officer shall decide, by passing an order, whether it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 and serve a copy of such order along with such notice on the assessee. With the conjoint reading of section 148A(b) and (c) and clauses (vii) and (viii) of the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 ([2021] 430 ITR (St.) 214) it is apparent that a personal hearing in addition to the show-cause notice of hearing is not mandated. In the absence of judicial precedent and when the specific words “and a personal hearing” have not been used in section 148A(b) and since clause (c) indicates that the reply submitted by the assessee has to be considered before passing an order under section 148A(d), it is not the mandate of law that a show-cause notice under section 148A(b) would necessarily and mandatorily include a personal hearing. The Department, on its own volition or on a request made by the assessee, might grant a personal hearing. Refusal to grant a personal hearing would not mean that the assessee has been deprived of an opportunity of hearing, in the absence of any specific provision or the language in the statute book mandating such a hearing.

In the absence of any specific judicial pronouncement dealing with the aspect of interpretation, considering the language of the provision and the words “if required” having been set out in 148A(a) it is left to the discretion of the Assessing Officer as to whether he desired to conduct an enquiry. If the Legislature had the intent and object of mandating an enquiry before issuing a show-cause notice under clause (b), it would not have specifically used the words “if required”, following the words “conduct an enquiry”. Therefore, if a harmonious interpretation was to be arrived at without rendering the words “if required” meaningless, the word “shall” would mean “may” since section 148A(a) granted discretion to the Assessing Officer to conduct an enquiry. Court held that Held since section 148 permitted an assessee to raise all issues at the time of the hearing, the Department should, in accordance with law, ensure that the assessees were extended adequate and reasonable opportunity to contest the notice and all contentions of the parties were, therefore, kept open. Court also held that according to the language used in clause (b) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, serving of a show-cause notice within such time as is specified is the mandate. A time line of not less than seven days and not exceeding thirty days, is to be granted to the assessee to submit a reply. Beyond thirty days, extended time can be granted if an application is made in this behalf. Undisputedly, the two words “personal hearing” do not appear in the entire section. The golden rule of interpretation is that one should not read what does not meet the eyes. A meaning as is ordinarily understood on a plain reading, has to be extended to a particular provision. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that the plain language engrafted in a section, must be given its ordinary meaning.