NANDAN MADHAV MANOHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 3

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge a notice dated 27 March, 2023 (“impugned notice”) issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), and also the underlying prior notice and order under Section 148A(b) and Section 148A(d) of the Act, respectively. The reassessment under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated in respect of returns filed by the Petitioner-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 3. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the impugned notice 2024:BHC-AS:35031-DB

With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only ‘to the extent’ provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot be issued by the FAO as per the said Scheme, we express our view as follows:- Section 151A of the Act itself contemplates formulation of Scheme for both assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 as well as for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Scheme framed by the CBDT, which covers both the aforesaid aspect of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act cannot be said to be applicable only for one aspect, i.e., proceedings post the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act being assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act and inapplicable to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Scheme is clearly 906.WP6003_2023.DOCX applicable for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and accordingly, it is only the FAO which can issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act and not the JAO. The argument advanced by respondent would render clause 3(b) of the Scheme otiose and to be ignored or contravened, as according to respondent, even though the Scheme specifically provides for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner, no notice is required to be issued under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner. In such a situation, not only clause 3(b) but also the first two lines below clause 3(b) would be otiose, as it deals with the aspect of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Respondents, being an authority subordinate to the CBDT, cannot argue that the Scheme framed by the CBDT, and which has been laid before both House of Parliament is partly otiose and inapplicable. ……..” 37 When an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the Authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law and the person seeking to quash such an action is not required to establish prejudice from the said Act. An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statue, itself causes prejudice to assessee. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law and by following the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, when the Income Tax Authority proposes to take action against an assessee without following the due process of law, the said action itself results in a prejudice to assessee. Therefore, there is no question of petitioner having to prove further prejudice before arguing the invalidity of the notice.

In the present case, it is apparent that the Respondent-Revenue has not complied with the Scheme notified by the Central Government pursuant to Section 151A(2) of the Act. The Scheme has also been tabled in Parliament and is in the character of subordinate legislation, which governs the conduct of proceedings under Section 148A as well as Section 148 of the Act. In view of 906.WP6003_2023.DOCX the explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware, the grievance of the Petitioner- Assessee insofar as it relates to an invalid issuance of a notice is sustainable and consequently, the very manner in which the proceedings have been initiated, vitiates the proceedings.

Learned Counsel for both the parties agree that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act would not be sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Assessee has also drawn our attention to a recent decision of this Court in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

In the light of the above discussion, and as there is no dispute that the JAO had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus : “a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash, cancel and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 10 March, 2023 (Exhibit ‘A’), the impugned order under dated 24 March, 2023 (Exhibit ‘B’), the impugned notice dated 27 March, 2023 issued by respondent no. 1 (Exhibit ‘C’) and the impugned sanction order dated 23 March, 2023 issued by respondent no. 2 (Exhibit ‘D’).”