MS. ARHAM INFRABUILD LIMITED. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13333/2024HC DelhiDLHC01063886202410 March 2025Author: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ms. Arham Infrabuild Limited. The Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by a previous decision of the same Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8330-DB. In that precedent, the Court had ruled on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in the context of faceless assessment proceedings. Therefore, based on this binding precedent, the present petition was found to be without merit. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition, meaning the impugned notices and proceedings were allowed to stand.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. Arham Infrabuild Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices issued under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 25.04.2023 passed under Section 148A(d). The core of the challenge was that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked the authority to initiate these reassessment proceedings after the CBDT's Notification dated 29.03.2022 mandated faceless reassessment proceedings. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from continuing with these proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, subsequent to the issuance of CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, which mandated faceless reassessment proceedings? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the JAO lacked jurisdiction to initiate the impugned notices and proceedings because the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 required reassessment proceedings to be conducted in a faceless manner, implying that a JAO acting in a non-faceless capacity could not validly initiate such actions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position, or the established legal position, was that the JAO did possess the necessary jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13333/2024 &CM APPL. 55697/2024 MS. ARHAM INFRABUILD LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshit Chauhan and Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocates versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Khan, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSCs, Ms. Yashika Gupta and Ms. A. Shankar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

10.03.

2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- “a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notices issued under section 148A(b) of the Act, order dated 25.04.2023 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, and notice dated 25.04.2023 issued under section 148 of the Act in the case of the Petitioner for AY 2019-20;

b. Issue directions to the Respondents restraining them from continuing with proceedings based on the impugned notices as above, or direct that any such proceedings shall not be given effect to, during pendency of the present writ petition;

c. To grant waiver from filing of certified copies of annexures to this writ petition;

d. To pass any other order as deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:01:35

2.

The petitioner has premised its challenge to the impugned notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) and Section 148 of the Act on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) did not have the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 148A and 148 of the Act after issuance of the Notification dated 29.03.2022 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring reassessment proceedings to be conducted in a faceless manner.

3.

The said issue is covered against the petitioner by the decision of this Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25 (3) New Delhi, Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:8330-DB.

4.

The present petition is accordingly dismissed.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 10, 2025 rl This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:01:35

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →