SHARAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
WP/6985/2024HC BombayHCBM01024782202410 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather than the National Faceless Assessment Centre, are invalid. This decision is based on the reasoning provided in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. The Court found that the issuance of these notices by the JAO was in violation of Section 151A of the Act. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notices issued under Section 148. Furthermore, any re-assessment orders, demand notices, or penalty notices that may have been passed pursuant to these invalid Section 148 notices were also quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with Section 151A regarding the authority issuing Section 148 notices is mandatory for their validity.

What were the facts?

The petitions before the Bombay High Court challenge notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners, various individuals and companies, argue that these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). This, they contend, is a violation of Section 151A of the Act. The revenue's counsel concurs with the petitioners' submissions. The assessment years are not specified for each petition, but it is noted that they relate to different assessment years. The procedural history involves the issuance of Section 148 notices, which are now under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, are invalid in light of Section 151A of the Act? The petitioners argue that such notices are invalid, relying on the High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. The revenue's counsel concurs with this contention. No arguments were recorded for the revenue against this specific point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (907) WRIT PETITION NO. 6985 OF 2024 Sharad Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents AND (921) WRIT PETITION NO. 5965 OF 2023 Rajeev Balkishan Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Thane & Anr.

...Respondents ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (923) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12282 OF 2023 Manav Greys Exim Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), & Ors.

...Respondents AND (925) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13832 OF 2023 Royal Chains private Limited ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3) & Ors.

...Respondents AND (927) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 20132 OF 2023 Ghansham Doulatram Pahlajani ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Ors.

...Respondents Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.05.15 11:14:47 +0530

2/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc AND (933) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6692 OF 2024 Apex Knives Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(1) & Ors. ...Respondents AND (934) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12068 OF 2024 Meybuen Ventures Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (936) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15833 OF 2024 Satyaraj Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (937) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15836 OF 2024 Geetadevi Vindokumar Bind ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (938) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15837 OF 2024 Ankytrixx and Friend Entertainment LLP ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents Purti Parab

3/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc AND (939) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15872 OF 2024 Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (940) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15874 OF 2024 Kishor Champalal Solanki ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors.

...Respondents AND (941) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15947 OF 2024 Vinod Jayantilal Shah

...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents ---- WP/6985/2024 Ms. Neha Anchlia for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WP/5965/2023 Mr. Dharan Gandhi i/b Mint & Confreres for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/12282/2023 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. D. B. Deshmukh for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/13832/2023 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b Mr. P. C. Chhotaray for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/20132/2023 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. Purti Parab

4/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc WPL/6692/2024 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/12068/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale i/b Ms. Radha Halbe for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15833/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Devendra Harnesha for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15836/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15837/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Ravi Rattesar for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15872/2024 Mr. Dinesh Kukreja i/b Mr. Sriram Sridharan for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. WPL/15874/2024 Mr. Naresh Jain a/w Ms. Neha Anchlia for Petitioner. Mr. Devendra Harnesha for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15947/2024 Mr. Dinesh Kukreja i/b Mr. Sriram Sridharn for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 10th MAY 2024 P.C. : 1. Counsel for respondents undertake to file vakalatnama within two weeks from today. Undertaking accepted. Purti Parab

5/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc 2. All these petitions relate to different Assessment Years. We are informed by counsel for petitioners that in these petitions the notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not the National Faceless Assessment Centre and hence, is in violation of Section 151A of the Act. Counsel for petitioners state that as held by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.1, these notices will be invalid. Counsel for respondents concurs. 3. Therefore, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in these petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment orders are passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside. 4. Petitions disposed accordingly. 5. Whichever contention raised in these petitions not covered by Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) is kept open to be raised, should the need arise. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 2024 SCC OnLine 1249 Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →