VICKY SHIVRAM PATIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(3), MUMBAI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/6806/2024HC BombayHCBM01023963202409 May 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned notices dated March 31, 2023, and April 7, 2022, were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Court found that this issuance was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the scheme framed thereunder. Relying on its own previous decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors., the Court concluded that such notices would be invalid. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Vicky Shivram Patil, M/s. Sai Developers, and Sai Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., have filed writ petitions challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices were dated March 31, 2023, and April 7, 2022. The petitioners' counsel argued that these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This, according to the petitioners, contravenes the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder. The counsels for the respondents-revenue concurred with this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated March 31, 2023, and April 7, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid for having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), thereby violating Section 151A of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder? Assessee's Contention: The notices are invalid because they were issued by the JAO and not the FAO, as mandated by Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the relevant scheme. The assessee relies on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. to support this argument. Revenue's Contention: The counsels for the respective respondents-revenue concurred with the assessee's submission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

WP/6806/2024
WP/6887/2024
WP/6889/2024

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

1/2 1066-72-73-aswp-6806-6887-6889-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1066) WRIT PETITION NO.6806 OF 2024 Vicky Shivram Patil …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(3), Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents WITH (1072) WRIT PETITION NO.6887 OF 2024 M/s. Sai Developers …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents WITH (1073) WRIT PETITION NO.6889 OF 2024 Sai Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents Ms. Ritika Agarwal, with Ms. Ayesha S. Ansari, i/b. ACE Legal, for Petitioners in all petitions. Mr. Arjun Gupta, for Respondents-Revenue in WP/6806/2024. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondents-Revenue in WP/6887/2024 & WP/6889/2024. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 9th May 2024 PC:-

1.

Mr. Gupta undertakes to file vakalatnama within two weeks from today.

2.

Ms. Agarwal states that the impugned notices dated 31st March 2023 and 7th April 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, Gaikwad RD

2/2 1066-72-73-aswp-6806-6887-6889-2024.doc 1961 have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”) and, therefore, notices have not been issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder. Ms. Agarwal states that as held by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.1 this notice will be invalid. Counsels for respective Respondents concur.

3.

Therefore, the impugned notices dated 31st March 2023 and 7th April 2022 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside.

4.

Petitions disposed. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 Judgment pronounced on 3rd May 2024 in Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 Gaikwad RD RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2024.05.13 20:47:31 +0530

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →