SH. BAGGA SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT,INT. TAXATION, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 231/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 May 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO, but as per the notification, it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit. Following the High Court's judgment, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Non-Resident Indian, failed to file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148, and after the assessee's objections were disposed of by the DRP, an assessment order was passed.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice under Section 148, issued by the jurisdictional AO after the relevant notification, is sustainable and whether the assessment order based on it should be quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Y.K. Sud, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Hearing: 06.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

the assessment order dated 14.12.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in assessment year 2018-19.

2. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee was a Non A.Y.2018-19 2 Resident Indian at the relevant time. He did not file his return of income for assessment year 2018-19. The ld. AO has initiated the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act vide notice dated 30.03.2022. Thereafter, assessee did not respond in response to the notices under Section 142(1). The AO has prepared a draft assessment order which was sent to the assessee on 10.03.2023. The assessee filed objections against the above draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel, New Delhi. The DRP has disposed of the objections of the assessee on draft assessment order vide its order dated 08.12.2023. It directed the AO to pass a final assessment order according to the directions of the DRP. The AO, in this way passed the impugned assessment order on 14.12.2023 which is challenged before us.

3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that after 29.03.2022, the notice under Section 148 ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit and not by the jurisdictional AO. The notice had been issued by JAO and therefore, it is not sustainable. The A.Y.2018-19 3 re-assessment proceeding deserve to be declared as invalid and consequently, it has to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon a large number of orders passed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court.

4. The ld. DR, on the other hand was unable to controvert this submission of the assessee. He only pointed out that the Revenue has challenged the judgments of various High Courts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the issue is pending. He also pointed out that on the last date of hearing, adjournment was granted to the Revenue on this ground.

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 A.Y.2018-19 4 DCIT CWP No. 11870 of 2025. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.04.2025 read as under : “DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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

ITA No.231/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 5

6.

Respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessment order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 13.05.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →