Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ 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 18.12.2024 passed for assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal, out of which under Ground Nos. 1 to 3, assessee has A.Y.2018-19 2 challenged the re-opening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.22,96,930/-. This return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. In other words, there was no scrutiny assessment in the present case. The ld. AO, thereafter, recorded reasons for re- opening of the assessment and issued a notice u/s 148 on 06.04.2022. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that this notice dated 06.04.2022 was issued after 29.03.2022. The notice u/s 148 ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit and not by the jurisdictional AO. The copy of the notice has been placed at page No.26 of the Paper Book which has been issued by Shri Bhim Singh, Ward-1, Kaithal. Thus, it has been issued by jurisdictional AO (JAO). According to the ld. counsel for the assessee, after 29.03.2022 this notice is not sustainable. He placed on record copy of following decisions: 1. Jatinder Singh Bhangu v/s Union of India CWP No. 15745 of 202- and Others 2. Jasjit Singh v. Union of India and Others CWP No. 21509 of 2023 3. Shri Bagga Singh, 12, Bacayao Sur CHD 2 2- Barangay, Dagupan City, Pagasinan, A.Y.2018-19 3 Philippines Vs The DCIT Intl Taxation, Chandigarh 4. Shy am Sunder Khandelwal vs. Assistant 161 taxmann.com 255 Commissioner of Income Tax [2024] 5. Aditi Constructions vs Deputy 151 taxmann.com 513 Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] (Bombay) 6. Sri Dinakara Suvarna vs Deputy 143 taxmann.com 362 Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] (Karnataka) 7. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri [2023] 151 taxmann.com 489 Dinakara Suvarna [2023] (SC) 8. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. [2008] 168 Taxman 39 Smt. Paramjit Kaur 9. Flexsin Technologies (p) Ltd. vs. Income 3003/Del/20\5 Tax Officer 3. At page No. 67 of the Paper Book, order of this very Bench in has been placed on the record.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities. He was unable to controvert the propositions laid down in all these judgements relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. While quashing the notice issued u/s 148 in the case of Shri Bagga Singh Vs DCIT (ITA No.231/CHD/2024), we observed as under : “5. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. There is no dispute that notice under Section 148 was issued upon the assessee on 30.03.2022 i.e. just one day after the notification issued by Finance Ministry providing that such notice would be issued by Faceless Unit. This aspect has been considered in a large number of judgements. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has passed the following order in the case of Shri Aman Batra Vs DCIT CWP No. 11870 of 2025. The A.Y.2018-19 4 judgement of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.04.2025 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 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). . 4. 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
Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessment order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
A.Y.2018-19 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
6. The ld. counsel for the assessee has also placed on record judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs Union of India and others as well as Jasjit Singh Vs Union of India. We have followed the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court on this issue in the case of Shri Bagga Singh, extracted supra. There is no disparity on facts between these cases vis-à-vis the case in hand because the notices which ought to have been issued by Faceless Authority, have been issued by the jurisdictional AO which is beyond his powers. The copy of the Notification dated 29.03.2022 has also been placed on Paper Book page 1. On due consideration of all these facts, we are of the view that re- opening is bad in the eyes of law and it is not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash the re-assessment order.