Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee filed a Cross Objection, arguing that the notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO was invalid as it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Wing as per a notification under Section 144B.
Held
The Tribunal, following judgments of the jurisdictional High Court, held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO was bad in law and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the re-assessment order was quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional AO was valid, considering the notification issued under Section 144B regarding faceless assessment.
Sections Cited
148, 144B, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, CA Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 19.07.2024 passed for assessment year 2019-20. & CO-41-2024 A.Y.2019-2020 2
2. On receipt of notice in the Revenue’s appeal, assessee has filed Cross Objection bearing No. 41/CHD/2024.
3. In the Cross Objection, assessee has taken Ground No. 1 as a preliminary jurisdictional ground of appeal. The grievance of the assessee in Ground No. 1 of the Cross Objection is that ld. jurisdictional AO has erred in issuing notice under Section 148 on 29.03.2023. According to the assessee, this notice was in contravention of the mandatory requirement of Faceless proceedings stipulated by the Income Tax Act, post its notification on 29.03.2022 under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue authority has submitted that assessment was reopened by issuance of a notice under Section 148 which was issued on 29.03.2023. After the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 29.03.2022, this notice ought to have been issued by Faceless Assessment Wing and not by the jurisdictional AO. He submitted that a similar notice was issued by the AO in the subsequent year which was challenged by the assessee by way of a Writ Petition bearing No. & CO-41-2024 A.Y.2019-2020 3 11870 of 2025. This Writ Petition has been decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court wherein Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has followed its judgement in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs Union of India decided on 19.07.2024 vide Writ Petition No. 15745 of 2024. The Hon'ble High Court has held that notice issued by the jurisdictional AO on 01.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction. He placed on record copy of the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court.
5. The ld. DR, on the other hand submitted that Revenue is in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against all such judgements rendered by various High Courts. Otherwise, he was unable to controvert the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee on the facts.
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 & CO-41-2024 A.Y.2019-2020 4 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 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 & CO-41-2024 A.Y.2019-2020 5 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
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.
Though the Revenue has raised a number of issues on merits in its appeal, but we have quashed the re-assessment
order, therefore, all the issues become academic in nature at this stage. We have quashed the assessment order on the strength of number of judgements rendered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, which is a view unanimously taken by other Hon'ble High Courts also. Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to consider other issues on merit. & CO-41-2024 A.Y.2019-2020 6
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed.