Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 11 of 25
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), relying on its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed the rulings in Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to alter the position of law established in the cited judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices issued by JAOs to be invalid. However, considering the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present but provided liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties and the existing High Court judgments (Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd.), quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated July 12, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This decision was based on the High Court's prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order dated May 25, 2023, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, reserving the revenue's right to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's judgments. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated June 24, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court, acknowledging that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related judgments) were to alter the prevailing legal position. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court also noted the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the request for liberty to revive the notice. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, quashing the notice with liberty granted to the revenue as prayed. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), following its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for relief. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court relied on its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed was also quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedents of Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The court accepted the Revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice in the event the Apex Court's decision in the SLP filed against Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related cases) altered the existing legal position. The court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was a ground covered by previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, following the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision altered the current legal position. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order was passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the impugned notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that such a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, following its own previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that such a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, following its own prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that such a notice, if issued by a JAO and not an FAO, would be invalid, following its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding such notices issued by a JAO to be invalid. While the Revenue agreed with this position, it sought liberty to revive the notice should the Supreme Court overturn the relevant precedents (Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited). The Court granted this liberty. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer v. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court, acknowledging that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice, as prayed by the respondent, in the event the Apex Court's decision in the Special Leave Petition concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited differed from the High Court's rulings. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order was passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court, quashed and set aside the notices dated August 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the High Court's decision in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notices if the Apex Court were to set aside the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. Following the reasoning in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the Court quashed the impugned notice dated 22.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148, and the order dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The ratio decidendi is that if notices under Section 148A are found to be without jurisdiction, as per established precedent, they are liable to be quashed. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding such notices issued by a JAO to be invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is empowered to consider applications for refund or credit of TDS in cases of genuine hardship. However, this power does not extend to conducting assessment proceedings that have already attained finality. The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner's own report confirmed that M/s. F.L. Smith Minerals Pvt. Ltd. had paid Rs. 7,38,56,810/- and deducted TDS of Rs. 15,75,379/-, which was not disputed. The fact that this amount was reflected in the petitioner's Form 26AS, issued by the respondent-Department itself, was also undisputed. The Tribunal reasoned that once the deduction of tax and its deposit by the deductor, leading to its reflection in Form 26AS, is accepted, the petitioner cannot be deprived of their rightful claim. Denying this claim would result in unjust enrichment by the Union of India. The Tribunal found that the petitioner faced genuine hardship due to the expiry of the limitation period for filing a revised return, leaving them with no remedy but to approach the Principal Commissioner. The rejection of the petitioner's claim was based on irrelevant considerations. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner's application was allowed. The respondents were directed to pay Rs. 9,71,353/- with interest.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pending SLP in the Apex Court regarding Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision alters the position of law established in the cited cases. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for relief. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also to stand quashed and set aside. No other grounds were decided.
The Court held that the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid, as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding was based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed and set aside the said notice. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid based on the established precedents of Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are bad in law. The court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court, while acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, agreed with the petitioner's contention that the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law. The Court followed its own precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023. However, in view of the pending SLP before the Apex Court, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the High Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the petitioner's prayer for quashing the notice, while also granting liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the precedents. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments, specifically referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer, quashing the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that the notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was invalid, citing precedents from Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the Revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the position in the aforementioned cases. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was held to be bad in law by this Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground concerning the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 19, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established position of law as laid down in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the liberty granted to the revenue implies a potential future challenge to the current order.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was covered by its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The Tribunal held that the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad and not valid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding is based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court quashed and set aside the notice. However, in view of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the notices issued by JAOs. The petition was disposed of with this liberty, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court, in agreement with the petitioner's counsel and acknowledging the respondent's submissions, quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the ground concerning the issuance of the notice by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by previous judgments of the High Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 12, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedents of Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn these judgments in any future proceedings. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed pursuant to the quashed notice, such order would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law, following its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by JAOs are invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order was passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 18, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The ratio decidendi is that a Section 148 notice issued by an unauthorized officer is void ab initio. The operative direction was to quash the notice and dispose of the petition, with liberty granted to the revenue.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 13, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, acknowledging the pending SLP against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.