RAJ KUMAR S/O SULTAN SINGH YADAV vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, challenged a notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The respondent also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed by the Revenue against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and notice had been issued. The respondent requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments.

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's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice dated April 18, 2023, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The assessee relies on the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue agrees that the ground raised is covered by the High Court's judgment. However, it notes that an SLP has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice has been issued. The Revenue requests liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.