MAHESH KUMAR YADAV S/O BALA SAHAI YADAV vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, challenged a notice dated April 13, 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 7(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 noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. 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, acknowledging that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice, as prayed by the respondent, in the event the Apex Court's decision in the Special Leave Petition concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited differed from the High Court's rulings. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order was passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice was bad and invalid as it was issued by a JAO, not an FAO. The assessee relied 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 agreed that the ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, the revenue pointed out that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position.