AMOL RAMRAO DAHALE vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/10344/2022HC BombayHCBM03033758202219 July 2024Bench: 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, is unsustainable if it was not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Act. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), which had ruled that such notices are unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. Any further demand notice or penalty notice issued in furtherance of the unsustainable notice would also not survive and were consequently set aside. The court left open all contentions of both sides, except those covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment, which are available to the parties in a proceeding that can be initiated by the FAO under the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amol Ramrao Dahale, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging a notice. The primary contention raised was that the impugned notice could not have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) but should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in terms of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, represented by the Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax and another, contested this. 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).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is unsustainable if it was not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The notice could only have been issued by the FAO in terms of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The notice issued by the JAO is therefore invalid. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this point, other than their appearance through their advocate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 908wp10344o22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 WRIT PETITION NO. 10344 OF 2022 AMOL RAMRAO DAHALE VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER 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:15070-DB

*2* 908wp10344o22 submit that the judgment dated 03.05.2024, delivered at the Principal Seat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), settles this issue. The notice could not have been issued, save and except by the Faceless Assessing Officer. If it is not issued by the FAO, this Court has ruled in Hexaware Technologies (supra), that such notice is unsustainable and, accordingly, the notice was quashed and set aside. 3. It is, thus, obvious that the ground of notice being 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* 908wp10344o22 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 151A

All 862 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →