RAJENDRA ANCHALIYA S/O SURAJMAL ANCHALIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Rajendra Anchaliya, 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, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Beawar, did not dispute this fact. The High Court was considering the validity of the notice based on previous judgments. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if higher courts overturned the precedents relied upon by the petitioner.

Held

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 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 the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether a notice dated April 13, 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 invalid? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad and not valid, relying on this 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 one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. However, they noted that a Special Leave Petition had been preferred against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested 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.