Anil Doriya Vs Union of India Through Ministry of Finance and Others (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Summary: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Anil Doriya Vs Union of India Through Ministry of Finance and Others, dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15 June 2026 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the challenge was premature because the reassessment proceedings had only been initiated and no recovery order had been passed. The Division Bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi observed that the petitioner would have an adequate opportunity to raise all available objections before the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings. The petitioner had sought quashing of the impugned order and consequential proceedings, contending that the grounds raised in his reply to the earlier show-cause notice under Section 148A(1) dated 31 March 2026 had not been properly considered by the Assessing Officer.
The Revenue opposed the petition, submitting that the proceedings were still at a preliminary stage, that no recovery had been ordered, and that objections concerning the limitation period, validity of the notice and other issues could be examined by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law. In support, the Revenue relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Anshul Jain Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, wherein the Supreme Court declined to interfere with reassessment proceedings at the initial stage after objections had been considered, while leaving the taxpayer free to contest the merits before the Assessing Officer. The High Court accepted the Revenue’s position that the petitioner would have an opportunity to raise his objections during reassessment.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as premature, expressly preserving the petitioner’s liberty to raise all available grounds before the Assessing Officer. The Court did not adjudicate the substantive correctness of the reassessment allegations, the limitation objection or the validity of the underlying notice on their merits.
Cases Discussed
1. Anshul Jain Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Supreme Court); SLP (C) No. 14823 of 2022; 02/09/2022; (2022) 143 taxmann.com 38 — Relied upon by the Revenue for the proposition that challenges concerning the merits of reassessment proceedings should ordinarily be raised before the Assessing Officer rather than through premature writ proceedings. The Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings after consideration of the taxpayer’s objections.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
[1] Quash and set aside the Order Dated 15/06/2026 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Sub-section (3) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act,1961 and any other consequential proceedings.
[2] Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit also be granted.
The grievance of the petitioner is against issuing a show cause notice Annexure P/15 dated 15.6.2026 and directing for assessment of the petitioner’s income for the year 2021 on the basis of the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to a show cause notice dated 31.3.2026 u/S.148-A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that the various grounds have been raised by the petitioner in the reply and the same has not been properly dealt with by the assessing officer and thus the impugned show cause notice deserves to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that it is only a show cause notice regarding commencement of the assessment proceedings and as such no order of recovery has been made which can only be done after the assessment proceedings are completed in which the petitioner will get ample opportunity to raise all the grounds available to him and his objections shall be decided in accordance with law including the objection regarding period of limitation and issuance of notice. Counsel for respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment by the Supreme Court in the case Anshul Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2022]143 Taxman.com 38(SC).
On due consideration and upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner’s apprehension are unfounded and only a notice has been issued to the petitioner regarding commencement of the assessment proceedings in which he will have opportunity to raise all the grounds available to him.
In view of the same, the petition being premature cannot be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed, however, with liberty to reserve the petitioner’s right to raise all the grounds before the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings.
