PRADEEP TUKARAM KOKADWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 1 AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/12265/2023HC BombayHCBM03039186202319 July 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE3 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). The Court relied on its previous decision in WP No. 1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), which ruled that such notices, if not issued by the FAO, are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice. The Court further directed that any subsequent demand notice or penalty notice issued in furtherance of the quashed notice would also not survive and would stand set aside. All other contentions of both sides, not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment, were left open for consideration in any fresh proceedings that might be initiated by the FAO under the scheme framed under Section 151(A).

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pradeep Tukaram Kokadwar, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging a notice. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the notice, specifically a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued by the appropriate authority. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with Section 151(A) of the Act, and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. The procedural history indicates that the matter was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is sustainable, or if it ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in terms of Section 151(A) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice could only have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The petitioner relied on the judgment in WP No. 1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Advocates for the respective sides submitted that the judgment in Hexaware Technologies (supra) settles this issue. No specific argument was recorded for the revenue beyond this submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151(A),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 919wp12265o23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 919 WRIT PETITION NO. 12265 OF 2023 PRADEEP TUKARAM KOKADWAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 1 AND ANOTHER ... Shri Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ Department. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 19th July, 2024 Per Court :-

1.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides. Several issues have been raised in this Petition, inter alia, 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 2024:BHC-AUG:15056-DB

*2* 919wp12265o23 submit that the judgment dated 03.05.2024, delivered at the Principal Seat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies 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. If any further demand notice or penalty notice in furtherance thereof, would also not survive and stands set aside.

*3* 919wp12265o23

5.

With the above directions, this 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. kps (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 →