Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 13 of 25
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, acknowledging 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., held that such a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would be bad and invalid. The Court noted the revenue's submission regarding the SLP filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and the issuance of notice therein. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 17, 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 in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. 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 13, 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 its own precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, 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 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 agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law, 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 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 altered the legal position. 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 High 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 the issue 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 JAOs to be invalid. However, considering the pendency of an SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present but provided liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.
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 prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on 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 this 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 acknowledged that one of the grounds 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. While the Revenue conceded on this point, it sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the precedents. The Court granted this liberty. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the Revenue to revive it under specific circumstances. The Court also stated that any reassessment order passed 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 24, 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), relying on its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's judgment in 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 petition was disposed of, and 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'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 the petitioner's prayer for the present. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, 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 rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 19, 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) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law, 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 alter the legal position established by these judgments. 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 11, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the agreement by both parties that the ground raised by the petitioner, 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 and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to set aside the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. 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 to stand quashed and set aside.
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, having been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was invalid, following the precedents set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, 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 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 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 JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, 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 reassessment order passed 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 agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad and not valid, following its own judgment 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 Court also stated that if any re-assessment order is passed, it will also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of, and 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 followed its own precedent in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO under Section 148 is invalid. 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 Court also quashed and set aside any reassessment order that might have been passed pursuant to the invalid notice. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the High Court's previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. The Tribunal also noted the pendency of an SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Liberty was granted to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The Tribunal explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of both parties were kept open. 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 15, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice, having been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was 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 liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it 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 June 27, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This decision was based on the established precedent of the Court in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at a later stage. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications.
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 notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that this issue was covered by the High Court's own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice. Crucially, the Court also 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 kept open all rights and contentions of the parties for future proceedings. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
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 law as laid down by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held 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 in the Hexaware Technologies case, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. 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 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 was based on 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 interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it 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 found 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 previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer. The Court acknowledged the revenue's submission that an SLP was pending in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacted 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. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 21, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission 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 precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the respondent's request for liberty to revive the notice. This liberty is contingent upon the outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. If the Apex Court's decision modifies or overturns the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited, the Revenue will have the right to revive the notice. The Court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions of both parties were kept open. Any reassessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 16.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established legal position, as extensively dealt with in the cited cases of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which presumably held that such notices should be issued by Faceless Assessing Officers. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to alter the legal position in the aforementioned cases. The operative direction is the quashing of the notice and disposal of the petition with liberty reserved.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with the precedents cited by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to alter the legal position. Therefore, while quashing the notice, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the related cases impacts the current ruling. The ratio decidendi is that a Section 148 notice issued by a JAO, when faceless assessment procedures are applicable, is invalid, subject to any overriding decision by the Apex Court. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the Revenue.
The Tribunal, following the order of a Coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The reasoning was based on the established principle that such notices, if issued by the JAO instead of the FAO, are invalid. The court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and, therefore, granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of the earlier judgments. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The Tribunal, following the order of a Coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal acknowledged the reliance placed by the petitioner on decisions like Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and others. The revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware case and the potential for revival of the notice was also considered. Consequently, 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 petition was disposed of on these terms, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, following the order of a Coordinate Bench dated August 12, 2025, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. 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 noted that the counsel for the revenue had sought time to file a reply, but it was not granted as the revenue's counsel had been present earlier when an interim order was granted. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal, following the order dated 12.08.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for this decision was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was a significant ground for challenge. The Tribunal 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 altered the existing legal position. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of on these terms, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court, following a coordinate bench's order in Kamini Jindal Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax – Range 1 & Ors., quashed and set aside the notice dated 17.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the notice was indeed issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Relying on the precedents of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, the Court held that such a notice issued by the JAO was invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the aforementioned cases. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court, following its own Coordinate Bench's order in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Court reasoned that the notice was indeed issued by the charged JAO and not the FAO. While acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to alter the legal position, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision necessitated it. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
The Tribunal, following the order dated August 12, 2025, in Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, quashed and set aside the notice dated March 19, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The reasoning was based on the established principle that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the cited High Court judgments. The Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of on these terms, keeping open the rights and contentions of all parties. No specific amount in dispute was recorded.
The High Court, following the order of a Coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5745/2025 (Gaze Fashion Trade Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax), quashed and set aside the notice dated 19.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. 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 reasoning was based on the established principle that notices under Section 148 should be issued by the appropriate authority, and in this instance, the notice was issued by the JAO instead of the FAO. The Court disposed of the petition on the same terms as the Gaze Fashion Trade Limited case, keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal held that a diligent officer would have forwarded the application to the correct 'Central' Circle-4. The Court directed the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4) to treat the petition itself as an application for the release of seized items. The application is to be disposed of within four weeks of the order being uploaded. The Court further stipulated that a personal hearing must be given to the petitioner, with notice communicated at least five working days in advance. The Court explicitly clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the matter. The petition was disposed of on this procedural direction.
The Tribunal held that the ITAT was justified in setting aside the PCIT's order. Firstly, regarding the PCIT's power under Section 263, the Tribunal noted that the AO had raised queries concerning Section 14A during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee had provided explanations. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, the Tribunal held that once a query is raised and answered, it is considered to have been examined by the AO, even if not explicitly mentioned in the assessment order. Therefore, the PCIT's finding that the AO had not considered the issue was incorrect, and the assessment order was not erroneous on this ground. Secondly, the Tribunal agreed with the ITAT's finding that Section 14A was not applicable to the assessee, an insurance company, given the specific computation mechanism provided under Section 44 of the Act. The Tribunal found no substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the ITAT was not right in deciding the matter solely on the basis of the delay without touching upon the merits and jurisdictional issues. The Court noted that there was confusion due to the introduction of faceless hearings, and the appellant had filed an appeal before CIT(A) Jaipur but received a notice from CIT(A) Delhi. The issue of jurisdiction was raised, and a prayer for transfer was made. The appellant, acting on mistaken advice, approached the Principal Chief Commissioner for recalling the order and transfer. The Court found the delay to be explained and that the appellant was pursuing a remedy, albeit on wrong advice. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT was set aside, the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the clarity of the law regarding notices issued by the JAO instead of the FAO, as per previous judgments. While the petitioner sought to amend the petition to include this ground, the Revenue conceded that the law was clear. The Court, in fairness, kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. Crucially, the Revenue was granted 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 clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. Therefore, the petition was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty granted to the Revenue.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 29.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, and that this issue was extensively dealt with in the cited cases. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) or other related cases were to interfere with the current judgment. The Court also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty granted to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and must be quashed and set aside. This decision was based on the settled position of law as per the High Court's own recent judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 29th March 2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the impugned order dated 29th April 2024 passed under Section 148A(d), and the impugned notice dated 29th April 2024 issued under Section 148 were all bad due to being issued by the JAO. Consequently, these were quashed and set aside. The Court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, leaving open the possibility for parties to rekindle issues if the Apex Court interferes with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning was based on the established legal position that such notices must be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the precedents of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision were to alter the current legal stance. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 21.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the petitioner's primary ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal relied on the precedents of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1), Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with these judgments. The Tribunal clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds. The petition was disposed of with this liberty granted to the revenue, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. No other issues were decided on merits.
The High Court held that the statutory remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be bypassed. The Court stated that its scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited when hearing petitions relating to orders passed under Section 148 of the Act. The Court found no question of law requiring its examination or any jurisdictional issue that warranted intervention at that stage. It explicitly left open all grounds for the petitioner to raise before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the present petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition.
The High Court held that the statutory remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be bypassed. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the scope for entertaining cases relating to orders passed under Section 148 of the Act is limited. The Court found no question of law or jurisdictional issue that required examination at that stage, leaving all grounds open to the petitioner before the appellate authority. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.
The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed. It was further held that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as this would weaken Section 151A and diminish its activation. For assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notices issued by the JAO were quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022, keeping the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the pendency of the litigation was to be excluded for computing the limitation for issuing fresh notices, if required. The judgment also referenced a prior decision from the Punjab and Haryana High Court which held that circulars or instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that authorities cannot usurp legal provisions for their convenience, causing hardship to assessees.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which was a ground extensively dealt with in cited precedents. The Tribunal acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and the potential for the Apex Court to interfere with the existing judgments. Consequently, the Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision impacts the aforementioned judgments. The Tribunal clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds. The petition was disposed of with this liberty granted to the revenue.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 12.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning was based on the established legal position, as extensively dealt with in the cases of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which likely dealt with the invalidity of notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. This implies that the Tribunal found the notice to be invalid based on the current legal understanding but provided a conditional recourse for the Revenue. The Tribunal also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 21.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the established principle that such notices should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), as supported by the cited precedents: Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to quash the notice with liberty to the Revenue. The Tribunal also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the primary issue was decided, and other grounds were withdrawn.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, a point extensively dealt with in the cited precedents. The court acknowledged the revenue's submission regarding the possibility of Supreme Court intervention in the cited cases and, therefore, granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if such an event occurred. The court clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 11.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the established legal position, as dealt with in the cited cases of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which indicated that such notices should be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the legal position through its pronouncements in the aforementioned cases. The Tribunal clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there were no reasons to interfere with the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously challenged a notice under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2011-2012, and while that was quashed, the High Court had granted liberty to the revenue authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court found that the current notice under Section 153C was a consequence of this liberty. The Court also observed that the satisfaction note forming the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was present. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who were directed to pass an appropriate speaking order. The ratio decidendi is that once liberty is granted to proceed according to law, subsequent proceedings under a different section, if validly initiated based on discovered material, are not to be quashed by the High Court, and the assessee should pursue their remedies before the assessing authorities.