GOVND RAMESHWAR MANDHANE vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/10690/2022HC BombayHCBM03035053202219 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, was unsustainable if not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Court relied on its previous judgment in WP No. 1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), which held that such notices, if not issued by the FAO, are unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the notice issued to the petitioner was quashed and set aside. Any further demand or penalty notices issued in furtherance of this unsustainable notice were also set aside. All contentions of both parties, except those covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment and those that can be raised in a proceeding initiated by the FAO, were left open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Govind Rameshwar Mandhane, filed a Writ Petition challenging a notice issued to him. The primary contention raised was that the notice could not have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) but should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in accordance with Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue was represented by the Principal Chief Commissioner and another authority. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, was validly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or if it ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in terms of Section 151A of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The notice could only have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per the scheme framed under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issuance by the JAO renders it unsustainable. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the Revenue on this point, but the matter proceeded based on the arguments presented by both sides.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 911wp10690o22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 WRIT PETITION NO. 10690 OF 2022 GOVIND RAMESHWAR MANDHANE VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER 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 submit that the judgment dated 03.05.2024, delivered at the 2024:BHC-AUG:15064-DB

*2* 911wp10690o22 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. 5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

*3* 911wp10690o22 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →