SH. KRISHAN GOPAL GUPTA S/O LATE SHIVCHARAN GUPTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Krishan Gopal Gupta, challenged a notice dated June 24, 2025, 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), rendering it invalid. The respondents, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, and Income Tax Ward-5(1), Jaipur, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the precedents relied upon.

Held

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 24, 2025, 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 previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice dated June 24, 2025, 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 is invalid as it was not issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer, relying 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. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, they stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Apex Court against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice was issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.