ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishwas Shah with learned advocate Ms. Bhavna Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “A. Be pleased to quash and set aside impugned order u/s. 148A(d) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 and impugned notice dated 22.04.2022 u/s. 148 of INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 passed by the Respondent; B. Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the operation, effect, implementation of impugned order and notice dated 22.04.2022 passed by Respondent; C. Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay any action by Respondent for Non-filing of Income Tax Return for AY 2018-19 by petitioner-assessee; D. Cost of this petition; E. Any other relief, order or direction which Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit, proper and equitable in the facts of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1 The petitioner-company has not filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 inspite of sale of immovable property by the petitioner and therefore, this is a case of non-filing of return. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 21.01.2008 with City Gold Investment Private Limited and SNP Ceramics Private Limited being Loan and Mortgage Agreement for loan amount of Rs. 50 Lakh whereby, the petitioner had mortgaged the property of the petitioner situated at Revenue Survey No. 78/2 of Mauje Jetalpur, District-Vadodara, bearing Survey No. 1990 in T.P.Scheme No. 14 and Final Plot No. 4, a Shop in the Meghdhanush Complex, Semi Basement, Bearing No. S/B-1 admeasuring 303 sq.ft. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan and a civil suit is filed by the lendor-City Gold Investment Pvt. Ltd bearing Special Civil Suit No. 633 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Vadodara for recovery of Rs. 78,32,876/- in the Year 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner committed default in repayment of the loan and a civil suit is filed by the lendor-City Gold Investment Pvt. Ltd bearing Special Civil Suit No. 633 of 2011 before the Civil Judge, Vadodara for recovery of Rs. 78,32,876/- in the Year 2011. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.05.2017, a compromise settlement was arrived at between the parties which is reduced in writing and as per the consent terms, it was decided that the petitioner would sale the mortgaged property to a third party viz. Ceramic Gallary, Baroda, and out of the sale proceeds, Rs. 40 Lakh will be paid to the plaintiff-lendor i.e. City Gold Investment P. Ltd to satisfy the suit claim. 3.3 Accordingly, the suit was withdrawn on 08.05.2017 by the plaintiff. 3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.05.2017, a sale deed was executed between the Ceramic Gallary and the petitioner and in the said deed it was stated that the entire sale proceeds of Rs. 40 Lakh are to be made directly in favour of the City Gold Investment Pvt. Ltd. 3.5 Thus, according to the petitioner, the petitioner has not received any amount of the sale proceeds. 3.6 The respondent issued a notice dated 25.03.2022 under section 148A(b) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] on the ground that in absence of the return of income filed by the petitioner, there is escapement of income as the property has been sold by the petitioner for Rs. 80 Lakh. 3.7 The petitioner, upon receipt of the said notice, filed a reply dated 04.04.2022 and clarified that the petitioner is a dormant company and no work was carried out in the Company and it has no income since long and therefore, prayed for time to gather the information to properly respond to the queries raised. 3.8 The respondent-Assessing Officer, by notice dated 07.04.2022, granted more time to the petitioner to file reply and representation by 20.04.2022. 3.9 It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the notice dated 07.04.2022, the petitioner filed reply dated 19.04.2022 clarifying that the petitioner-Company has not received any income out of the sale proceeds and no amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner-Company. 3.9 It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the notice dated 07.04.2022, the petitioner filed reply dated 19.04.2022 clarifying that the petitioner-Company has not received any income out of the sale proceeds and no amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner-Company. 3.10 Thereafter, the respondent has passed the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act along with notice of the same date under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2018-19. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vishwas Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been granted any opportunity of hearing by the respondent-Assessing Officer as provided under section 144B(6) (vii) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the petitioner has placed on record the sale deed as well as the consent terms to point out that the petitioner has not received any sale consideration in the bank account of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that any income had escaped assessment. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly, the petitioner has not filed return of income disclosing the sale transaction though it may have been entered into in compliance of the consent terms between the petitioner and its lendor. However, the petitioner is required to file the return of income disclosing such transaction and to compute the capital gains, if any, arising out of such transaction in accordance with the provisions of the INCOME TAX ACT . 5.1 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply: “4. It is respectfully submitted that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee has sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- during F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19. 5.1 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Sanghani referred to and relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply: “4. It is respectfully submitted that as per the information available with the Department, the assessee has sold immovable property amounting to Rs. 80,00,000/- during F.Y. 2017-18 relevant to A.Y. 2018-19. Notice under clause(b) of section 148A of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why a notice u/s. 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggest that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of assessee for relevant A.Y.2018-19. In response, the assessee submitted its reply, which was duly considered, however, the same was not found tenable. 5. Accordingly, on the basis of information with the Assessing Officer and considering the reply of assessee, Order u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated 22.04.2022 for A.Y.2018-19 was passed with prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Vadodara and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.04.2022 for A.Y.2018-19 was issued in the case of assessee. 6. With reference to paragraph 1 of the petition, same being facts and brief facts of the case, the answering respondent offers no comments. 7. With reference to paragraphs 2.1 to 2.12 of the petition, the correctness of each and every allegation and/or contention and/or submission made by the petitioner are denied. 8. As per the information available with the Department, the assessee petitioner sold immovable property amounting to Rs.80,00,000/during F.Y.2017-18 relevant to A.Y.2018-19. However, the assessee petitioner admitted that they have sold immovable property for the sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-and also submitted the copy of sale deed. Further, assessee petitioner has reduced the credit balance of M/s City Gold Investments Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-, which is not logically correct. Inspite of the admitted fact that immovable property was sold by the assessee petitioner during the year, no return of income for AY 2018-19 was filed. Therefore, the provisions of Section 148 A(d) Act and consequent notice issued u/s 148 Act are valid in light of unambiguous of fact of income to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/-. All the averments and contentions put forth by the assessee petitioner do not hold any merits and may that be admitted. 8. Therefore, the provisions of Section 148 A(d) Act and consequent notice issued u/s 148 Act are valid in light of unambiguous of fact of income to the tune of Rs. 40,00,000/-. All the averments and contentions put forth by the assessee petitioner do not hold any merits and may that be admitted. 8. With reference to paragraphs 2.1 to 2.12 of the petition, all the allegations and or contentions and/or submission made by the petitioner are denied. The case is reopened lawfully, on the basis of information available with the Department and by invoking the provisions for reopening the assessment in view of the clear escapement of income. Notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued the provisions of Section 148 A & 149 of Act.” 6. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that the impugned notice is issued and the order under section 148A(d) is passed taking into consideration the information available with the department in absence of any return of income filed by the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts of the case, it is admitted that the petitioner has not filed any return of income disclosing the transaction of sale of immovable property during the year under consideration. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has entered into consent terms with its lendor and to satisfy the debt, has sold the property which was mortgaged by the petitioner to the third party for a sale consideration of Rs. 40 Lakh. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has not filed the return of income and therefore, the question of giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner does not arise. More particularly, when the petitioner has also admitted that no return of income has been filed disclosing the sale transaction entered into between the petitioner and its lendor for sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the third party to satisfy debt so as to compute the income properly on the face of the record, there is an escapement of income resulting into loss of revenue. 8. In such circumstances, we do not entertain this petition as the petitioner is required to comply with the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 8. In such circumstances, we do not entertain this petition as the petitioner is required to comply with the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act. It is made clear that pendency of the petition would be considered as the stay of the proceedings as this Court has issued notice by order dated 21.06.2022 and thereafter, the matter could not be heard from time-to-time though listed from time-to-time. In such circumstances, the respondent-Assessing Officer shall pass the Assessment Order within the period of Twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.