SOPAN VASANTRAO MORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/9847/2022HC BombayHCBM03031594202219 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 earlier decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, which had ruled that such notices are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The court further directed that any subsequent demand notice or penalty notice issued in furtherance of the quashed notice would also not survive and were accordingly set aside. All other contentions of both sides, not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment and available for initiation by the FAO under the Section 151(A) scheme, were left open for future proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sopan Vasantrao More, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated by the scheme framed under Section 151(A) of the Act. The revenue, represented by the Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax and another, was the respondent. The court noted that a similar issue had been decided by a judgment dated 03.05.2024 in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others) at the Principal Seat.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable if it is not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with the scheme framed under Section 151(A) of the Act? (Question of law and mixed fact and law) The assessee argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), contrary to the provisions of Section 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee relied on the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but their presence as respondents indicates their opposition to the petitioner's claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151(A),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 906wp9847o22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 WRIT PETITION NO. 9847 OF 2022 SOPAN VASANTRAO MORE VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER ... Shri Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Alok M. 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:15077-DB

*2* 906wp9847o22 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* 906wp9847o22

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 →