TUNVIEY RADHESHYAM MOPALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/9120/2024HC BombayHCBM03026358202427 August 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable because it was not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Relying on the precedent set in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), the Court found that if a notice is not issued by the FAO, it is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. Any further demand notice or penalty notice issued in furtherance of this unsustainable notice would also not survive and were set aside. The Court clarified that all other contentions of both sides, not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment and available in proceedings that could be initiated by the FAO, were left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tunviy Radheshyam Mopalwar, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petition challenged an impugned notice. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the notice was correctly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or if it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The parties agreed that a prior judgment in WP No. 1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others) at the Principal Seat would govern this issue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was validly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or if it ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per the scheme framed under Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The notice could only have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in terms of Section 151(A). Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. The judgment states that the learned advocates for the respective sides submitted that the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited would settle the issue, implying the revenue did not contest the applicability of that precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151(A),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

( 1 )

44 wp 9120.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 44 WRIT PETITION NO. 9120 OF 2024 TUNVIEY RADHESHYAM MOPALWAR VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND ANOTHER ….. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Pawar Ajay D. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Alok Sharma ….. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 27th August, 2024 P.C. :-

1.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Several issues have been raised in this Petition, inter alia, one being that the impugned notice could not have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and which could have been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2.

The learned Advocates for the respective sides submit that the judgment dated 03.05.2024, delivered at the Principal Seat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), settles this issue. The notice could not have been 2024:BHC-AUG:20050-DB

( 2 )

44 wp 9120.24 issued, save and except, by the Faceless Assessing Officer. If it is not issued by the FAO, this Court has ruled in Hexaware Technologies (supra), that such notice is unsustainable and, accordingly, the notice was quashed and set aside.

3.

It is, thus, obvious that the ground of notice being not in accordance with the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the view taken in Hexaware Technologies (supra), would be applicable to this case.

4.

In view of the above and considering the conclusions drawn in Hexaware Technologies (supra), the notice issued u/s 148 would be unsustainable. The same is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Any further demand notice or penalty notice in furtherance thereof, would also not survive and stands set aside, if any.

5.

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed off. Needless to state, all the contentions of both the sides, save and except, those which are covered by the Hexaware Technologies (supra), and which are available to the parties in a proceeding, which can be initiated by the FAO under the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, are left open. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] mub

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →