JUDGMENT : Petitioner challenges an order issued under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act. On 20.02.2024, he was served with a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act pointing out that for the assessment year 2017-18, enquiry conducted has brought out information suggesting that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and asked him to show cause why a notice under section 148 of the Act should not be issued. The annexure referred to cash deposits of Rs. 19,38,543/- and aggregate debit of Rs.1,35,37,590/- from the account of the petitioner. An opportunity of hearing was also granted to him. 3. In the reply, petitioner stated that he is an NRI having no taxable income in India except for some interest income. It was further stated that he has not been able to obtain details from the bank and pointed out that the details are not presently available to justify the cash deposit, except that it might have been his family members who would have deposited the amounts. As far as the debit was concerned, it was regrettably stated that he had no details but asserted that there was no income element in it. Petitioner also questioned the time limit for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. 4. Despite the above reply, Ext.P3 order was issued on 22.03.2024 under section 148A(d) of the Act after obtaining approval of the concerned authority determining it to be a fit case to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act observing that the deposits and withdrawal into and from the account of the petitioner remains unexplained. As the amount exceeded Rs.50,00,000/- the limitation was 10 years and hence it was observed that the time limit had not expired. A notice under section 148 of the Act was also issued, proposing to reassess the petitioner and directed him to file a return of income. 5. A statement has been filed by the respondents pointing out that the authorised representative of the petitioner was heard and the notice was issued after analysing the contentions. A notice under section 148 of the Act was also issued, proposing to reassess the petitioner and directed him to file a return of income. 5. A statement has been filed by the respondents pointing out that the authorised representative of the petitioner was heard and the notice was issued after analysing the contentions. It was found that the withdrawal to the tune of Rs.1,35,37,590/- was not supported by deposits and the assessee has not explained the source of deposits, thereby leaving an unexplained income to that extent. It was also observed that the assessee had not filed the return of income despite engaging in financial transactions exceeding the threshold limit for filing a return. It was contended by the respondents that all procedures contemplated under section 148A of the Act were complied with and there was no reason to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent has proceeded on a roving enquiry unsupported by any material to assume that withdrawal will constitute income. It is further stated that no proper enquiry as required under section 148A(a) of the Act for issuing the notice was carried out and therefore the proceedings are totally invalid. 7. Smt. Ammu Charles, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) ought to be interfered with, since the requirements under the statute have not been met. According to the learned counsel, the assessee was never asked to explain the source of funds and was instead issued with a show cause notice pointing out the withdrawal. After issuing the show cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Act referring to certain withdrawals from the bank account, the respondents erred in deciding to issue notice under section 148 of the Act alleging unexplained source of funds. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has erroneously added withdrawals amounting to Rs.1,35,37,590/- to the deposits for artificially inflating the alleged income escaped assessment, beyond the threshold limits to initiate proceedings. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has erroneously added withdrawals amounting to Rs.1,35,37,590/- to the deposits for artificially inflating the alleged income escaped assessment, beyond the threshold limits to initiate proceedings. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Catchy Prop-Build Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 448 ITR 671 (Delhi) and Red Chilli International Sales and Others v. Income-tax Officer and Another (2023) 452 ITR 222 (SC) in support of their contentions. 8. Sri. Keerthivas Giri, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the order under section 148A(d) have been issued after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and therefore grievance if any can be agitated before the assessing officer at the time of re-assessment. 9. While considering the rival contentions, it needs to be mentioned that section 148A of the Act was introduced by Finance Act 2021 as a remedial measure, to protect the rights and interest of the assessee and to act as pre-check before deciding to issue notice for reassessment. The provision has subsequently been amended by Finance Act 2024 with effect from 1st September 2024. Since the present issue relates to the period prior to 01-09-2024, the provisions of section 148A as in existence prior to that date applies. The said provision read as follows: 148A. The provision has subsequently been amended by Finance Act 2024 with effect from 1st September 2024. Since the present issue relates to the period prior to 01-09-2024, the provisions of section 148A as in existence prior to that date applies. The said provision read as follows: 148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Provided that …. (omitted as not relevant). 10. A reading of the above provision will reveal that the proceedings under section 148A of the Act is intended to give to the assessee an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show cause notice prior to the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. (omitted as not relevant). 10. A reading of the above provision will reveal that the proceedings under section 148A of the Act is intended to give to the assessee an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show cause notice prior to the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. The notice is intended to inform the assessee that information has been obtained, suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year and calling upon him to explain why a notice itself should not be issued under section 148 of the Act. The provision is not intended to be a full fledged enquiry into every detail but only as a safeguard, granting an opportunity to the assessee to explain why the proceeding should not travel to the stage of reassessment. An order under section 148A(d) only opens the stage for issuing a notice for reassessment. Thereafter, petitioner will have every opportunity to contest the matter by filing the return. Therefore unless there are exceptional reasons like violation of the principles of natural justice or such other exceptional reasons, a challenge against an order under section 148A of the Act ought not to be entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The specific time lines mentioned under section 148A indicates that it is a time bound procedure and cannot be prolonged by repeated challenges, that too, on the merits. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not proper for this Court to interfere in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Notwithstanding the above, in the show cause notice, petitioner was called upon to explain the financial transactions including the withdrawal of a huge sum of Rs.1,35,37,590/- from his bank account. When the withdrawal of a certain amount and the financial transactions therein are asked to be explained, petitioner cannot take shelter on vague replies. When a withdrawal is questioned, corresponding source deposit ought to be explained failing which, there is nothing wrong in the competent authority proceeding to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. At that stage of the proceeding also petitioner will get an opportunity to explain. In that view of the matter, the contention on merits raised by the petitioner is also without any legs to stand. 12. At that stage of the proceeding also petitioner will get an opportunity to explain. In that view of the matter, the contention on merits raised by the petitioner is also without any legs to stand. 12. Apart from the above, in the decision in Renu Singh v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (2024) 467 ITR 24 (SC) the three judge of the Supreme Court had clearly observed that the notices under section 148 and 148A cannot be made the subject matter of proceedings under Article 226 as the petitioner has efficacious remedy under the Income Tax Act itself. In the decision in Anshul Jain v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (2022) 449 ITR 256 (SC) also similar proposition has been laid down. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.