KAMLESH KUMAR JANGIR S/O BHAGIRATH SINGH JANGIR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Kamlesh Kumar Jangir, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The respondent's counsel conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondent also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Apex Court against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The respondent sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed from the High Court's rulings.

Held

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order was passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, it stated that an SLP was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position established in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd.