Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 12.11.2024 passed for assessment year 2018-19.
2. Though the assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, but at the very outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted A.Y.2018-19 2 that since notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022 by jurisdictional AO instead of Faceless AO, as contemplated in the Notification issued by the Finance Ministry dated 29.03.2022, thus, according to him, the impugned assessment order is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CWP No. 22564 of 2025 in the case of M/s Kudu Knit Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India.
3. The ld. Ld. CIT DR was unable to controvert this submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee.
4. We find that an identical issue was decided by this Bench in with C.O. No.41/CHD/2024. The finding of the Tribunal read as under: “6. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Admittedly, notice under Section 148 was issued after the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 29.03.2022. The notice under Section 148 has been issued on 29.03.2023 i.e. almost one year from the Notification. Thus, facts of other year are squarely applicable. The issue in dispute is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court which read as under : “DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
Challenge made through the instant petition is to the notice dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure P-l) issued to the petitioner by the respondents tinder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer which could not have been done because in A.Y.2018-19 3 terms of the notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-2), issued by the Ministry of Finance. Government of India, the impugned notice could have been issued only by way of faceless assessment.
In support of his afore submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following two judgments of this Court:- i. CWP-15745-2024, titled Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 19.07.2024; and ii. CWP-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 29.07.2024.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered in his favour by the law laid down through the aforesaid two judgments rendered by two different co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra). .
In the light of the above, in terms of the law laid down in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's and Jasjit Singh's cases (supra) the impugned notice dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
[DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [ LAPITA BANERJI] 30.04.2025 JUDGE
7. Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, we allow the ground of appeal of Cross Objection and hold that notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in assessment year 2019-20 is bad in the eyes of law. It was without jurisdiction. Accordingly, re-assessment order is quashed.”
Apart from this order, there are large number of judgements at the end of the Jurisdictional High Court including in the case of M/s Kudu Knit Process Pvt. Ltd.
ITA No.213/CHD/2025 A.Y.2018-19 4
Respectfully following the judgement, we quash the re- assessment order because notice u/s 148A(1) was issued on 30.03.2022 as observed by the AO in the assessment order. Accordingly, this plea of the assessee is allowed and re-assessment order is quashed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.