ICONIC FASHION RETAILING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Learned counsels have submitted that such notices would be bad in law, in view of the new faceless regime having come into force. However, in the case of M/s Patran Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on 20.12.2024, one of us (Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.) has taken this view while sitting in Punjab and Haryana High Court which reads as under:

The entire scheme of the Act specifically requires the same assessing officer, who issues notices to conduct an enquiry and considered their reply in terms of Section 148A. Thereafter, the same assessing officer is required to pass an order under the new scheme after giving notice under Section 148 of the old Act. In our considered opinion, if we examine the provisions of present situation, which has arisen on account of treating the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act as notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the natural corollary would be that such replies which may be received to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, would be examined by the same assessing officer, who had originally issued the notices under the old regime. His juri iction cannot be said to have been taken away for examining the reply to notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Therefore, as a result the same assessing officer i.e. JAO would be also entitled to take a decision on such reply and pass orders of

In Rajeev Bansal's case (supra), the Apex Court took into consideration the said aspect and held that the revenue shall after receiving the response of the assessee, consider the reply in terms of Section 148A(c) of the Act and take a decision under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The scheme of the new provisions also reflect that it is the assessing officer, who has issued notices, would take a decision under Section 148A(d) of the Act as it is he who would be having the available material to examine the reply of the assessee. He would thereafter issue notice under Section 148 of the Act treating it to be a fit case for reassessment, if so required or may drop the proceedings. Once he has issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, the proceedings can be transferred for issuing the reassessment order through faceless regime. If the contention of the respondents is accepted, the entire process has to be conducted under the faceless regime, not by the juri ictional assessing officer the result would be that all the notices issued and treated by the Supreme Court as issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act would become otiose and redundant for all the purposes.

As per Section 148 of the Act amended with effect from 01.04.2021, the assessing officer has to serve on the assessee

We find that as per Section 144B (7) and (8) of the Act (supra), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in-charge of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, may in facts and circumstances as laid down therein or at any stage of assessment transfer the case to the assessing officer having juri iction over the case. This power, of course, has to be exercised in circumstances laid down therein.

Although, we find that the power under Section 144B (7) and (8) has not been exercised by the Principal Chief Commissioner to the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, however, the circumstances have been considered by the Supreme Court while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in Ashish Aggarwal's case (supra), whereby it has specifically provided the juri iction to the Juri ictional Assessing Officer by deemed fiction of law under the new Faceless Regime. We say so because the initial notice was issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, which has been treated to be a notice under Section 148A of the Act and Section

In the opinion of this Court, the procedure which has been laid down under the new regime will of course have to be followed by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer.

We find that no prejudice would be caused if such a course is adopted by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer. The submission of the petitioners is, therefore, found to be without force.

In view of our above reasons and observations, we do not agree with the view taken by the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy's case (supra).

The contention of Mr. Bansal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners relating to non-application of the judgment passed in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) is also found to be wholly misconceived. So far as the case decided by us in Jasjit Singh's case (supra) is concerned, we find the facts of that case were different. The case deals with the notices which have been issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer after the faceless regime had come into force with effect from 29.03.2022. 28. The view taken by the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited's case (supra) also does not apply to the present bunch of cases. It is made clear that the petitioners relating to the orders passed by the Assessing Officer on merits can be raised in appeal before the appellate authority. If appeals are so filed, the same shall be decided on merits and the delay shall be condoned on account of the fact that the writ petitions are pending before this Court.”

In view of the decision which has been taken in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and other connected matters (supra), we hold that in cases where the assessee have gone in the appeal against the final assessment order, the said appeals would stand decided in view of the observations and findings arrived at herein above. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly.

A copy of this order be placed in the above three writ petitions.”

Mr. Sandeep Pathak, counsel for respondents agrees.

Ordered accordingly.

Petition disposed.

All interim applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-Sourav/12