RAJU BHIKULAL YADAV vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/12740/2023HC BombayHCBM03040717202319 July 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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) as required by the scheme framed under Section 151(A) of the Act. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, which had 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 Section 148 notice. It further directed that any further demand notice or penalty notice issued in furtherance of the quashed notice would also not survive and were accordingly set aside. The Court left open all contentions of both sides that were not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment and were available in proceedings that could be initiated by the FAO under the Section 151(A) scheme.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raju Bhikulal Yadav, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the petitioner's argument was that the notice could not have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) but should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with Section 151(A) of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another, was the respondent. The High Court considered a previous judgment delivered by the Principal Seat in WP No. 1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others) which dealt with a similar issue regarding the validity of notices issued under the faceless assessment scheme.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable if it is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as contemplated by the scheme framed under Section 151(A) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice could only have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in terms of Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The petitioner relied on the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not record any specific contentions against the petitioner's argument regarding the issuance of the notice by the FAO, but implicitly supported the validity of the notice by appearing before the court. The judgment does not record any specific authorities or precedents relied upon by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 920wp12740o23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 WRIT PETITION NO. 12740 OF 2023 RAJU BHIKULAL YADAV VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 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:15192-DB

*2* 920wp12740o23 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* 920wp12740o23

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 →