SANTOSH SINGH TOMAR S/O PRATAP SINGH TOMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Facts

The petitioner, Santosh Singh Tomar, challenged a notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 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, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar, acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing judgments. The respondent also informed the court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), and notice had been issued. The respondent sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is considered bad in law as per the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to interfere with the existing judgments. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision in the SLP leads to a different outcome. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

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 bad in law and invalid? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, and therefore, it is bad and not valid. The petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others and Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: The respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the Court. The respondent stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The respondent requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.