RAJAN JHIRIWAL SON OF SHRI KAMAL KUMAR JHIRIWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Rajan Jhiriwal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, initially stated that due to inadvertence, certain grounds were not raised, specifically that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent's counsel, Mr. Siddharth Bapna, acknowledged this as a potentially valid ground. The Court noted that the law on this matter was clear, referencing its own recent judgment in Shree Cement Limited and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

Held

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and must be quashed and set aside. This decision was based on the settled position of law, as affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 14th March 2024, issued under Section 148, was indeed issued by the JAO. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside this notice. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, and noting that if the Apex Court were to interfere with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, parties could revisit the issues.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid? (Question of law turning on Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, rendering it bad in law. The petitioner was prepared to argue this ground, even if not formally amended in the petition. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel acknowledged that if the Court allowed the petitioner to raise the ground regarding the JAO issuing the notice, it would be a valid ground.