ASAMANNOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.317, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 ,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that Section 144B(1) of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes the faceless procedure, contains a non-obstante clause and applies to assessment, reassessment, or re-computation. However, it does not mandate that proceedings interior to these stages must also be faceless. Furthermore, Section 144B(2) states that faceless assessment shall be in respect of areas, persons, or classes of cases specified by the CBDT, and the petitioner had not produced any notification to show their case was covered. Even if the petitioner's case were covered by the faceless assessment procedure, the proceedings prior to the reassessment proceedings are not illegal for not being faceless. The assessment year is 2019-2020, and the faceless procedure was introduced with effect from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, is challenging an order passed under Section 148A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-2020. The Assessing Officer decided to reopen the assessment, alleging that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment based on information from the cooperative department and the petitioner's reply to notices. The petitioner had not filed a return for the assessment year 2019-2020. The challenge is based on the argument that the proceedings should have been conducted in a faceless manner as per the Finance Act, 2021, and subsequent schemes.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2019-2020, are vitiated for not being conducted in a faceless manner as mandated by the Finance Act, 2021, and the subsequent schemes framed by the CBDT. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the introduction of the faceless regime through Section 144B, Section 151A, and Section 130 of the IT Act, along with the 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'E-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022', makes it mandatory for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A to be conducted in a faceless manner. They rely on the principle that if a power is given to be exercised in a certain way, it must be done so, citing Chandra Kishore Jha, Cherukuri Mani, and Opto Circuit India Limited. Revenue's Contention: The respondent contends that Section 144B mandates a faceless procedure for assessment, reassessment, or re-computation under Section 143(3), Section 144, or Section 147, but not for proceedings prior to the assessment/reassessment stage. They also argue that the faceless procedure was introduced from April 1, 2021, and the assessment year in question is 2019-2020, thus the petitioner cannot claim the earlier proceedings are bad for not being faceless. They assert that the reassessment notice issued after the impugned order will be faceless.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 151A,Section 130
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
has been filed impugning Ext.P9 order passed under Clause d of Section 148A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the IT Act’ for short) for the assessment year 2019-2020 whereby, the assessing officer has decided to open the assessment of the petitioner for the said assessment year and issue notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. The petitioner, the assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not filed any return of income for the assessment year 2019-2020. The information in possession of the assessing officer and those collected from the cooperative department during the course of proceedings and petitioner’s reply to the enquiry notice under Section 148A(a) of the IT Act and show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act would suggest that income chargeable to tax attributable to the banking transactions of the assessee for the financial year 2018-2019, relevant to the assessment year 2019-2020 had escaped assessment. Therefore, the assessment officer recorded satisfaction that it was a fit case for issue of notice under Section 148 of the IT Act. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to challenge the said order in Ext.P9 on the ground that the Finance Act, 2021 had brought the procedure of faceless regime for the purposes of WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 3 governing the assessment under the Income Tax Act. The new provisions got introduced in Section 144B, Section 151A and Section 130 of the IT Act. In furtherance to the powers conferred under Section 130(1) and Section 130(2) of the IT Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has framed a scheme called “Faceless Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022. In the said Scheme, automated allocation, is defined under Section 2(b), which reads as ‘ automated allocation’ means an algorithm for randomized allocation of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimize the use of resources;’. 3.Section 3(b) of the said Scheme deals with vesting of the jurisdiction with the Assessing Officer and reads as: "Vesting the jurisdiction with the Assessing officer as referred to in section 24 of the Act, shall be in a faceless manner, through automated allocation, in accordance with and to the extent provided in-” 4.The Central Board of Direct Taxes, in exercise of its power conferred under Section 151A(1) and Section 151A(2) of the IT Act has framed another Scheme called the E-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. Under the said scheme, “automated allocation,' means an algorithm for randomized allocation of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimize the use of resources. "
WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 4 5.Section 3 of the said scheme provides as "for the purpose of this Scheme,- assessment, reassessment or re computation under section 147 of the Act, issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. 6.On the basis of the aforesaid provisions and the scheme or faceless assessment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with respect to the proceedings to be drawn under Section 148A of the IT Act, the same has necessarily to be faceless. Two mandatory conditions are required to be adhered to by the Department; “1) the allocation maybe made through the automated allocation system management strategy formulated by the Board under Section 148 of the IT Act; 2) the re-assessment has to be done in a faceless manner to the extent provided under Section 144B of the Act.” 7.It is further submitted that after introduction of the aforesaid two
WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 5 schemes, it is now mandatory for the Revenue to conduct / initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. 8.In the present case, the proceedings under Section 148A of the IT Act, has been commenced by the local jurisdictional officer and not in the prescribed faceless manner. 9.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that “it is well settled principle of law that where the power is given to do certain things in certain way / manner, the thing has to be done in that way/ manner and not any other manner which is otherwise not provided under the law, as observed in; Chandra Kishore Jha vs. Mahaveer & Others [(1999) 8 SCC 266],Cherukuri Mani Vs. Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2015) 13 SCC 722 and Opto circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank and others [(2021) 6 SCC 707]. 10.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 148A of the IT Act, the proceedings have not been faceless as it mandated under the two schemes formulated by the CBIC, the impugned proceedings have not been done in the manner prescribed and therefore, the order impugned is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 11.Sri. Jose Joseph, the learned Senior Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department has submitted that the faceless assessment
WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 6 procedure as prescribed under Section 144B of the IT Act has been introduced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 with effect from 01.04.2021. Section 144B(1) provides that the assessment, re assessment and re-computation under 143(3) of the IT Act or under Section 144 or 147 of the IT Act, as the case may be, shall be made in a faceless manner. He therefore, submits that what is contemplated or mandated under Section 144 B is the faceless procedure for the assessment, reassessment or re computation under sub-section (3) of Section 143 or under Section 144 or under Section 147 of the IT Act, but not the procedure or the proceedings before the stage of assessment/reassessment…etc. He therefore, submits that there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He also submits that the reassessment in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, after the impugned order has been passed shall be faceless. There is no illegality in the order passed under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act which is impugned in this writ petition. It is also submitted that the assessment year is 2019-2020 and the faceless procedure for assessment, reassessment or re computation has been introduced with effect from 01.04.2021. Therefore even otherwise, the petitioner cannot urge that the proceedings prior to the WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 7 reassessment are bad in law as they are not the faceless proceedings. 12.I have considered the submissions advanced. 13.Sub-section (1) of Section 144B which prescribes the faceless procedure for assessment etc., reads thus; “(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or re-computation under subsection (3) of Section 143 or Section 144 or under Section 147 as the case maybe with respect of the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure,….” 14.Sub-section (2) provides that faceless assessment under Sub-section (1) shall be made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons or class of incomes or cases or class of cases, as may be specified by the court. 15.Thus, what is provided under sub-section (1) which has a non obstante clause is that the faceless procedure for assessment, re-assessment, re computation and not the proceedings interior to the said assessment, re-assessment, re computation. Further, sub-section (2) provides that the faceless procedure for assessment, re-assessment and re computation shall be in respect of the persons, class of persons, class of cases, as may be, specified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner has not brought on record to submit that his case is covered by WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 8 the notification issued by the CBIC. Even otherwise, the assessment year is of 2019-2020 and the faceless procedure has been introduced with effect from 01.04.2021. 16.Considering the aforesaid facts, provision of the Act and the submission, I am of the considered view that even if the petitioner’s case is covered to be completed under the faceless assessment procedure, the proceedings interior to the reassessment proceedings are not illegal as those are not completed under the faceless procedure as prescribed under Section 144B of the IT Act and the scheme framed by the CBIC. Hence, I find no substance in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE SJ
WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2024 9
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026