(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus directing the 1st respondent, prohibiting him from delving upon issues, mentioned in the show cause notice having DIN ITBA/AST/F/144SCN/2025-26/10818875001 dated 21.10.2025 for the Assessment Year AY 2017-18 impugned notice, which never formed part of the original assessment order passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section 144 of ITBA/AST/S/144/2019-the Income-Tax Act, 1961 Act in DIN 20/10225379221 dated 17.12.2019 for the AY 2017-18 and which was referred back to the Assessing Officer for passing a detailed, exhaustive and speaking order on all the impugned issues vis--vis the submissions made by the Petitioner assessee.)

1. Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned show cause notice dated 21.10.2025 issued for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The show cause notice has been issued pursuant to the demand order on CIT (Appeals) dated 30.01.2025. The petitioner had suffered adverse assessment order on 17.12.2019 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, when the petitioner failed to respond to the notice issued under Section 142(1) dated 09.03.2018. After the remand order was passed by the CIT (Appeals) on 30.01.2025, the petitioner was issued with the following two notices under Section 142(1) as detailed below:

                   

4. The petitioner herself had given the information in the reply dated 23.08.2025, stating that she had deposited the amounts as detailed below:

                   

5. It is in this background, the impugned show cause notice has been issued on 21.10.2025. The challenge to the show cause notice is that the show cause notice goes beyond the assessment order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 30.01.2025.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not in possession of any documents to substantiate the receipts for sale of mangoes during the period in dispute, as more than 10 years have lapsed. It is submitted that the petitioner is required to maintain records only for six years, as per the information gathered by the petitioner from the Income Tax Department for maintenance of records which reads as under:

                    Where books of account and other documents should be kept and maintained?

                    Books of account and other documents should be kept and maintained by the person at the place where he is carrying on the profession or, where the profession is carried on at more than one place, at the principal place of his profession. However, where the person keeps and maintains separate books of account in respect of each place where the profession is carried on, such books of account and other documents may be kept and maintained at the respective places at which the profession is carried on.

                    Period of maintenance

                    Books of account and documents should be kept and maintained for a period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, if the assessment in relation to any assessment year has been reopened under Section 147 within the prescribed period, all the books of account and other documents which were kept and maintained at the time of reopening of the assessment should be kept and maintained until the assessment so reopened has been completed.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not have any records as the petitioner is not required to maintain accounts and other documents beyond six years, as six years period is fallacious. The petitioner had challenged the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 passed under Section 144 and kept the issue alive by filing an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), who by order dated 30.01.2025, remitted the case to the 1st respondent.

8. In this background, it is not open for the petitioner to state that the petitioner is not required to maintain documents and the petitioner would have destroyed the records based on the Income Tax Department’s literature. Be that as it may, the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned show cause notice is liable to be rejected and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

9. It is for the petitioner to establish that the deposits made by her were from the sale of mangoes to the buyers concerned. In fact, the petitioner has obtained certificates from some of these buyers. It is now for the petitioner to substantiate the genuineness of the same before the authority and distance herself from the liability proposed in the impugned show cause notice.