RAVINDRA JAISINGRAO CHAVAN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/5660/2024HC BombayHCBM03019457202412 September 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the mandate of resorting to the faceless procedure for issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is covered by the scheme notified by the Central Government dated 29.03.2022. Consequently, central charges and international taxation charges are not excluded from the application of the faceless mechanism notified under Section 144(b) read with Section 151-A of the Act. The Court found that the issue was no longer res-integra, having been settled by multiple previous judgments of the same High Court and other High Courts. The reasoning is based on the established legal position regarding the mandatory nature of the faceless procedure as notified. The ratio decidendi is that the faceless assessment scheme applies to all charges, including central and international taxation, for notices issued under Section 148. The writ petition was allowed in terms of prayer clause 'C', implying relief was granted to the petitioner in line with that prayer. All contentions of the litigating parties are kept open in the proceedings to be conducted through the faceless mechanism.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravindra Jaisingrao Chavan, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner Income Tax and another authority. The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench heard the matter. The Court noted that the law on identical facts has been settled by previous judgments, specifically mentioning Abhin Anilkumar Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai and Others (dated 28.08.2024), Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and 4 others (dated 03.05.2024), and Capital GLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai and Others (dated 15.06.2024). The Court also referred to Kairos Properties Pvt.Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (dated 05.08.2024) and a Telangana High Court judgment in Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad and Others [2024 SCC Online TS 1792].

What were the issues?

1. Whether the mandate of resorting to the faceless procedure for issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is covered by the scheme notified by the Central Government dated 29.03.2022, and whether this would exclude central charges and international taxation charges from the application of the faceless mechanism notified under Section 144(b) read with Section 151-A of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee's advocate. However, the allowance of the petition in terms of prayer clause 'C' implies the assessee argued in favor of the applicability of the faceless procedure to their case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue's advocate. However, the context suggests the revenue might have argued against the applicability of the faceless procedure or raised procedural objections.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144(b),Section 151-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

WP No.1778/2023
WP (L) No.15289/2024
WP (L) No.22686/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 WRIT PETITION NO. 5660 OF 2024 RAVINDRA JAISINGRAO CHAVAN VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER Mr.R.R.Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, JJ.) DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 PER COURT : 1. passed in WP (L) No.16750/2024, we are not adverting to the entire submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Suffice it to say that the mandate of resorting to the faceless procedure for issuance of notices u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, would be covered by 2024:BHC-AUG:22054-DB the scheme notified by the Central Government, dated 29.03.2022 and would not, therefore, exclude the central charges and international taxation charges from the application of the faceless mechanism, as notified u/s 144(b) r/w Section 151-A of the Act.

3.

In fact, the issue involved in this Petition is covered in the judgment of this Court dated 03.05.2024, delivered in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Others, WP (L) No.15289/2024, the issue is no longer res-integra. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, WP (L) No.22686/2024, dated 05.08.2024 and the view taken by the Telangana High Court in Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs.Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad and Others [2024 SCC Online TS 1792].

4.

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘C’.

5.

Needless to state, all contentions of the litigating parties are kept open in the proceedings, which are to be conducted through the faceless mechanism. ( Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →