Reassessment Notice Set Aside as Non-Furnishing of Details Prevented Reconciliation of Non-Resident TDS Data
Reassessment Notice Set Aside as Non-Furnishing of Details Prevented Reconciliation of Non-Resident TDS Data
Issue
Whether an order under Section 148A(3) and consequential reassessment notice under Section 148 are liable to be set aside and remanded when information regarding alleged foreign remittance TDS non-deduction was not provided to the assessee, preventing proper reconciliation of figures.
Facts
-
Completed Assessment: The assessee’s original assessment was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) after due examination of receipts and nature of transactions, accepting the returned income.
-
Reassessment Proceedings: The Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently issued a notice under Section 148A(1) alleging income escapement based on three specific foreign remittance items:
-
Foreign remittances received from an Indian payer under Section 195 without Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).
-
Foreign outward remittances referenced from Section 195(2) proceedings.
-
Outward remittances where TDS was allegedly not deducted by the Indian remitter, based on Form 15CC verification.
-
-
Lack of Details Provided: The AO issued the notice without supplying the underlying information/details or figures to the assessee along with the Section 148A(1) notice.
-
Order Passed: The AO conducted a limited inquiry, rejected the assessee’s objections, passed an order under Section 148A(3), and issued a consequential notice under Section 148.
-
Root of Dispute: The underlying dispute arose strictly due to a discrepancy/reconciliation issue between data on the Risk Management Strategy (RMS) portal and the figures accepted in the assessee’s prior assessment and the remitter’s Section 201 order.
Decision
-
Quashing of Reassessment Notice: Yes. The High Court/Tribunal set aside the order passed under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice under Section 148 because the failure to provide underlying details and conduct a proper inquiry at the Section 148A stage violated natural justice principles.
-
Remand to Notice Stage: Yes. The matter was restored back to the stage of the Section 148A(1) notice.
-
Directions to AO: The AO was directed to supply complete copies of the information/details to the assessee, provide an opportunity for written reply and oral hearing, and pass a fresh order after proper reconciliation.
Key Takeaways
-
Mandatory Disclosure of Information: Tax authorities must provide complete underlying details and information relied upon when issuing a notice under Section 148A, ensuring the assessee gets a fair opportunity to respond.
-
Reconciliation Before Reassessment: Simple portal discrepancies or reconciliation differences between RMS data, Section 201 orders, and filed returns do not automatically justify reassessment without giving the assessee a chance to reconcile figures.
-
Procedural Safeguards: Failure to conduct adequate inquiry or adhere to natural justice principles at the preliminary stage invalidates the consequential Section 148 reassessment notice.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amazon Web Services Inc
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
W.P.(C) No. 13680 of 2026
CM APPL. Nos. 63850 & 63851 of 2026
CM APPL. Nos. 63850 & 63851 of 2026
SEPTEMBER 17, 2026
Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv., Rohit Jain, Manish Kanth, Aniket D. Agrawal and Samarth Chaudhari, Advs. for the Petitioner. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Sanjeev Menon, Rahul Singh, Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSCs, Gaurav Kumar and Prateek Bhati, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961’), on various grounds, but mainly on the ground of change of opinion.
2. Mr. Porus Kaka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the facts of the case and submitted that the petitioner’s assessment was made under Section 147 read with Section 144C(13) of the Act of 1961, vide order dated 26.12.2025 taking into consideration transaction of Rs. 29,66,29,69,168. He added that after examining all aspects of the matter, including the nature of transaction and receipts, the petitioner’s returned income was accepted.
3. He submitted that yet, the Assessing Officer (AO) has issued a notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 on 31.03.2026, alleging that the income has escaped assessment while making reference of three transactions, which are reproduced hereunder:
| S. No | Information Received From | Information Description | Information Source | Amount (in Rs.) |
| 1. | WARD INT. TAX3(1)(1), Delhi | Received foreign remittance u/s 195 from M/s TV Today Network Ltd. Without TDS | Form 15CA/CB | 54,40,572/- |
| 2. | WARD INT. TAX 1(1)(2), Delhi | Foreign Outward Remittance | Proceedings u/s 195(2) of the Act | 26,66,29,69,168/- |
| 3. | WARD INT. TAX 1(1)(1), Delhi | Foreign Outward Remittance (Non-Deduction of TDS by Indian Remitter | Verification of Form 15CC and transfer of information | 19,17,77,24,603/- |
4. While pointing out that the first two transactions form part of the same assessment which was made on the earlier occasion on 26.12.2025, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the third item of Rs. 19,17,77,24,603/- is part of order under Section 201 of the Act of 1961 passed in the case of petitioner’s prayer and, therefore, all the three transactions have been subjected to assessment and scrutiny by the AO.
5. He argued that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had furnished a satisfactory reply before the AO, she has cursorily rejected the petitioner’s objections and has decided to proceed against the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.
6. Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that petitioner’s assessment was made after considering figure of Rs. 29,66,29,69,168/- only, whereas the amount reflected in Risk Management Strategy portal is Rs. 45,84,61,34,343/-. He asserted that in spite of the notice so issued, the petitioner gave an evasive and unsatisfactory reply and failed to provide details, tabulation/chart, etc., so as to enable reconciliation of the figures, so that the difference or discrepancy as noticed by the AO can be resolved/sorted.
7. Heard rival counsel.
8. The case set up by the petitioner is, that the AO is seeking to conduct a fishing and roving enquiry, in the guise proceedings under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, that too when the petitioner has already been assessed on its global income. According to the petitioner such exercise is impermissible in law, and the AO is proceeding on the basis of change of opinion.
9. Mr. Kaka further argued that since the petitioner has been assessed on global income in the previous assessment order, the petitioner’s remittance from India becomes irrelevant as the same in any case has been subjected to tax as part of global receipts.
10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that the dispute rather confusion is on account of reconciliation of the figures, as found in Risk Management Strategy portal vis-a-vis the figures in the petitioner’s earlier assessment and its payee’s order under Section 201 of the Act of 1961.
11. It seems to have been caused due to non-furnishing of the details to the petitioner along with the notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961 so also because of the limited time available with the AO. The limited inquiry which has been done by the AO at the stage of deciding objections under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 may also be a reason for the same.
12. We, therefore, dispose of the petition while setting aside the order dated 25.06.2026 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 and consequential notice dated 27.06.2026, issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The case is restored to the stage of notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961.
13. The AO is directed to provide a copy of the information/details (as mentioned in notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act of 1961) dated 31.03.2026 to the petitioner within a period of 7 days from today. The petitioner shall be free to file an additional reply with documents within two weeks of the receipt of the information or details.
14. The AO shall thereafter fix a date of personal hearing and give audience to the petitioner’s authorised representative providing one or more opportunities of hearing (as deemed expedient) and pass a fresh order after considering the reply and oral submissions so made.
15. Needless to observe that we have not recorded any finding or made observation about correctness or legality of the initiation of the proceedings or otherwise. The petitioner shall, therefore, be free to put forth his case and the AO shall be equally free to take independent yet objective view of the matter, in accordance with law.
16. Petitioner’s right to take legal recourse, (in case necessary) shall stand reserved.
17. Petition with all pending applications stands disposed of.

