Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 22 of 25
The High Court recorded the submission of the Income Tax Department's counsel that the department wished to withdraw the appeal. Based on this submission, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law was involved and dismissed the appeal. The Court noted the concurrent factual findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, which were not disputed before them. These findings established that the transactions involved a listed company, the share prices were not disputed, and the assessee dealt with shares of various companies through IPOs. Crucially, there was neither specific information with the revenue regarding the assessee's transactions with M/s Nikki nor evidence of price rigging or manipulation by SEBI. Furthermore, statements recorded from representatives of M/s Anand Rathi Shares & Stock Brokers were deemed irrelevant as the assessee transacted through M/s Basan Equity Broking Ltd. The Court found no material worth acceptance regarding share price manipulation and upheld that the share price of a listed company on a recognized stock exchange cannot be doubted in assessment proceedings without sufficient evidence. The claim made by the assessee in accordance with law could not be disallowed on surmises and conjectures. The appeal was dismissed as it involved a challenge to concurrent findings of fact without basis, and no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court held that the revenue's contention that the private respondents failed to make a full and true disclosure of income under Section 245C(1) deserved rejection. The revenue had accepted the Commission's order allowing the settlement applications, with the challenge limited only to the grant of immunity. This acceptance implied that the Commission's satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of the two pre-conditions of Section 245C(1) (full and true disclosure of income and the manner of derivation) was not in dispute. Furthermore, the Commission had recorded its satisfaction that the applicants cooperated during the settlement proceedings, and this finding was not challenged by the revenue. Since there was no challenge to the fulfillment of the three conditions required under Section 245H (full and true disclosure, manner of derivation, and cooperation), the argument regarding a lack of true and full disclosure did not arise. Consequently, no case was made out for interference with the impugned order, and the writ petition was dismissed.
The High Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. Importantly, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the AMNESTY Scheme, as prayed for. The reasoning for allowing the withdrawal is based on the submission made in the application. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made, as the petition was withdrawn. The principle that can be cited is that courts may permit withdrawal of petitions upon application and grant liberty to pursue alternative remedies like amnesty schemes, provided no prejudice is caused and the law permits.
The Tribunal (High Court) took on record the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent (Revenue). The Revenue stated that due to the amount involved in the case, the department had decided not to proceed further. Based on this submission, the High Court disposed of the writ petition. The specific finding on any substantive issue of law or fact is not recorded, as the matter was concluded based on the Revenue's decision not to pursue it. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition. No issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the entire matter was resolved by the Revenue's decision.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court took into consideration the submission that an assessment order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, and an appeal had been preferred against it. The petitioner was granted liberty to prosecute their appeal on all available grounds under the law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court granted the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits prescribed by a CBDT circular.
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternative remedy of appeal against the assessment order was available to the petitioner. The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, it is generally not appropriate to entertain a writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. However, to provide relief and ensure that the petitioner's grievances are heard, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the assessment order. The Court further directed that if the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of the order, it shall be decided on its merits without any objection regarding limitation. All questions raised in the writ petition were preserved and can be raised in the appeal.
The High Court disposed of both writ petitions in light of the adjudication made in the case of Shreyansh Mehta v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. The Court noted that the controversy raised in the instant writ petitions stood resolved by the decision in Shreyansh Mehta's case. In that precedent, the Court had disposed of a similar petition with directions to the Assessing Officer to decide the proceedings in accordance with law, taking into consideration the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court's case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal and the submissions made by the respondents. Specifically, the Court acknowledged that the revenue had conceded to dropping proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 in Rajeev Bansal's case due to the expired limitation period. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to take into consideration this assurance and the ratio of Rajeev Bansal's case. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings initiated in this case are liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the assessment order dated 22.02.2024 did not record the satisfaction required under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This was further supported by the precedent set by a Division Bench of the same court in Sunil Agrawal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that penalty proceedings are quashable in the absence of recorded satisfaction. The Tribunal found that the respondents' counsel could not dispute this factual and legal position. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were quashed. The operative direction was to quash the penalty proceedings and allow the petition.
The Tribunal held that the revisional authority's order was not justified. The immunity granted under the amnesty scheme covered all penalty proceedings, making the specific section under which penalty was imposed irrelevant.
The High Court disposed of the appeal without answering the issue/question raised, based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 lakhs, as per Circular No. 3 of 2018. The Court clarified that the issue has been left open and that the appellant Revenue would be entitled to revive the appeal if it is covered by an exception to the circular. No specific findings on the merits of the case were made, nor was any relief granted or denied on the substantive grounds of appeal. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal based on the tax effect, leaving the substantive issue undecided.
The High Court granted the appellant-Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the appeal falling below the monetary limits fixed by the Board.
The Tribunal, by relying on the joint submission of the parties, held that the controversy in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment of the High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr., decided on March 19, 2025. Consequently, the present petition was allowed in the same terms as the precedent case. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar issues decided in prior judgments are applied to subsequent cases. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter has been conclusively decided by a higher court or a coordinate bench on identical facts and legal grounds, subsequent similar matters should follow the same ruling. The operative direction was to allow the petition. Any pending stay petitions and applications were also disposed of accordingly.
The High Court disposed of the petition with a liberty granted to the petitioner to file a preliminary objection to the notice within two weeks from the date of the order. The respondent (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) is directed to decide the issue of serving notice to a dead person in accordance with the law expeditiously before proceeding further. The Court did not definitively rule on the validity of the notice itself but provided a procedural path for its determination. The core issue of whether a notice to a dead person is inherently invalid, especially when the department is aware, was not decided on merits but deferred for the Assessing Officer's decision.
The Tribunal was justified in its findings. For both assessment years, the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate its claims that the interest-free advances were made in the normal course of business or for business expediency. In AY 2002-03, advances to DPFL were not substantiated, especially considering the appellant deals in pesticides and not X-ray films. Advances to Tetenal India Limited for a joint venture and payments to M/s. Mooji Tulsidas & Co. were also bald statements without evidence. For AY 2001-02, despite a change in the stated purpose of advances to DPFL, no documentary evidence supported either explanation. The CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for AY 2002-03 was based on contentions not supported by evidence. The Tribunal's finding that explanations were unsubstantiated by documentary evidence was a finding of fact that did not suffer from perversity. Documents annexed with the appeal were not produced before the authorities. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant.
The High Court held that the notice dated 03.02.2022 was served upon the petitioner on 08.02.2022, with a request for appearance on 09.02.2022. This timeline did not provide the petitioner with reasonable time to respond. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.02.2022, which transferred the assessment proceedings, was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.1) to decide the issue in accordance with the law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No.1 on 15.04.2025 at 11:00 AM to avoid further delay.
The Tribunal was justified in restoring the disallowance of interest. The appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate that the interest-free advances were made in the normal course of business or from its own funds.
The High Court held that in view of the CBDT Circular dated 28.09.2021, which extended the time for assessees eligible to file applications for settlement on January 31, 2021, up to September 30, 2021, the issue raised in the writ petitions regarding the acceptance of applications did not require further adjudication. The Court directed the Interim Board to consider the applications made by the petitioners in accordance with law, taking into account the aforementioned circular. The Court explicitly stated that it had not considered the eligibility of the petitioners to make an application under Section 245C at this stage. The operative direction was to consider the applications, implying a remand for consideration by the appropriate authority.
The High Court held that the appeals are not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision is the tax effect in the appeals, which is below two crores. This fact brings the appeals within the purview of the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, which prescribes monetary limits for filing appeals. The court noted that the learned counsel for the appellant (revenue) could not present any arguments or establish any grounds to justify bringing these appeals under the exceptions mentioned in the said circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The substantial question of law, if formulated, was expressly kept open.
The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel, which was not opposed by the respondents' counsel, that the appeal before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeal) had been decided. Therefore, the purpose of the writ petition, which was likely to challenge an interim order or seek a specific direction pending the appeal, was no longer relevant. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition. No specific issues were left undecided as the petition was disposed of on a procedural ground.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of the writ petition as not pressed. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law for the redressal of any surviving grievances. The specific issue of whether the refund was correctly adjusted against the demand was not decided on merits, as the petitioner chose not to press the petition. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as not pressed with the liberty granted.
The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue are not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision is that the tax effect in the appeals is below two crores, which is a threshold specified in the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024. The revenue's counsel could not demonstrate any grounds to qualify for exceptions to this circular. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open. No specific findings on the merits of the income tax assessment were made as the appeals were dismissed on a procedural ground.
The Tribunal held that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 17.09.2024, as the tax effect in the appeal is below two crores. The learned counsel for the appellant (Revenue) could not make out a case to bring the appeal within the ambit of the exceptions mentioned in the circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the formulated substantial question of law is kept open, implying that while the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds (maintainability), the underlying legal issue was not adjudicated upon.
The High Court dismissed the petition primarily on the ground of delay. The Court noted that the impugned order reopening assessment was passed on 30.08.2024, and the petition was filed on 28.01.2025, showing a delay of almost five months. During this period, the petitioner had participated in the reassessment proceedings. The Court found no cause shown for this delay. Citing its own decision in Dilip Raj Singhvi Vs. Income Tax Officer, the Court held that in cases of delay in challenging an order under Section 148A(d), especially when it is not an order imposing additional tax liability but merely initiating reassessment, and the assessee has participated in the subsequent proceedings, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be exercised. The Court clarified that the issues raised by the petitioner would remain open to be raised before the assessing authority during the reassessment proceedings.
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions as not pressed. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the Income Tax Department for the supply of reasons and the material relied upon, as sought by the petitioner. The court noted that if the petitioner approached the department for this information, it would be considered in accordance with law expeditiously. The reasoning for this decision was based on the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal of the petitions and the liberty granted to pursue the matter with the department. The ratio decidendi is that a petitioner can withdraw a writ petition with liberty to approach the concerned authority for information, especially when relying on a Supreme Court precedent for such a course of action. All pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's argument, supported by the High Court's own decision in Sunil Agrawal and the Supreme Court's judgment in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, was valid. The core reasoning was that penalty proceedings under Section 271D cannot be initiated without the requisite satisfaction being recorded in the assessment order. Since the assessment order did not record such satisfaction for Section 271D proceedings, and instead mentioned separate initiation of proceedings under Section 271AAC, the notice issued under Section 271D was deemed invalid. The ratio decidendi is that the prerequisite of recording satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 08.07.2024 was quashed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as had been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) regarding the dispute vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authority. Based on the joint prayers and the consensus arrived at between the counsel for the respective parties, the Court quashed the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment rendered in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issue of limitation was to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again before the Court.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend their case. It was an undisputed fact that a lockdown was imposed due to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner's request for an extension to file their reply until the lockdown was lifted was not considered, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The Tribunal noted that while the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity, the limitations for finalizing proceedings were extended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for decision in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), regarding the dispute between the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities. Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, the Court found that all petitions were to be disposed of by treating the notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal. Consequently, these notices were quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in termsance with the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the purpose of Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again, and any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must strictly adhere to the law.
The High Court considered the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted this permission. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute or legal contention. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the issue of jurisdiction between Faceless Assessing Officers and Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, which has already been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Consequently, the same settled proposition of law governs these cases. Based on the joint prayers and the consensus arrived at between the counsel for the respective parties, the Court declared all the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal and quashed them. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the purpose of Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again before the Court.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities was identical to the issue already settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Based on the joint prayers and the consensus arrived at between the counsel for the respective parties, the Court allowed the petitions. It quashed the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, declaring them illegal. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the purpose of Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again before the Court.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the issue of jurisdiction between Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities, which has been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Consequently, the Court quashed the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, treating them as illegal. The respondents are granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment rendered in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court shall be excluded for the purpose of faceless assessment proceedings. Any issue of limitation will be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issues can be agitated again before this Court. Proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme are to be conducted strictly in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of Faceless versus Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities was settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, all petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were declared illegal and quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions were pending before the High Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issues were left open for parties to agitate before the Court.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of Faceless versus Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities is identical to the issue settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Consequently, the same settled proposition of law governs these cases. Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, the Court quashed the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, declaring them illegal. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), regarding the dispute between the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities. Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, all petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were declared illegal and quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issue of limitation was to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issue was left open for parties to agitate before the Court.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), regarding the dispute between the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities. Based on the joint prayers and the consensus arrived at between the counsel for the respective parties, the Court declared all petitions, which were reserved and are now being disposed of, to be allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were treated as illegal and quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment rendered in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issue of limitation was to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issue was left open for parties to agitate again.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer vis-à-vis the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is identical to the issue settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Consequently, the Court quashed the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, declaring them illegal. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law. Any other unadjudicated issues were left open for parties to agitate again.
The High Court held that the controversy in the batch of writ petitions concerns the issue of jurisdiction between Faceless Assessing Officers and Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, which has been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Consequently, the same settled proposition of law governs the present cases. Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, all petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were declared illegal and quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issue of limitation was to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issues were left open for parties to agitate again.
The Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as has already been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) regarding the dispute vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authority. Consequently, the settled proposition of law governs the field. Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, all petitions were disposed of by treating the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal and quashing them. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issues were left open for parties to agitate again. Proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme were to be strictly in accordance with law.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the issue of jurisdiction between Faceless Assessing Officers and Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, which has been settled by this Court in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, all petitions were allowed. The notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were declared illegal and quashed. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Other unadjudicated issues were left open for parties to agitate again.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as settled in the case of 'Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra)', which dealt with the dispute regarding the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities. Based on the joint prayers and the consensus arrived at between the parties, the Court declared the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal and quashed them. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in 'Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra)'. The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of 'Rajeev Bansal (supra)'. The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again before the Court.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities was identical to the issue settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, the Court declared the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal and quashed them. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the purpose of limitation in the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again before the Court.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerning the jurisdiction of Faceless Assessing Officers versus Jurisdictional Assessing Officers was identical to the issue settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, the Court declared the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers as illegal and quashed them. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment in terms of the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the Faceless Assessing Officer proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any further proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law, and any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again before the Court.
The High Court held that the notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were illegal and quashed them. The Court's reasoning was based on a previous judgment in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), which settled the controversy regarding the jurisdiction of faceless versus jurisdictional assessing authorities. The ratio decidendi is that actions taken by jurisdictional assessing officers in matters that should fall under the faceless assessment scheme are invalid. The Court allowed the petitions, quashing the impugned notices and orders. It granted liberty to the respondents to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment. The period during which the petitions remained pending was to be excluded for the purpose of limitation in faceless assessment proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). Any other unadjudicated issues were left open for parties to agitate.
The High Court held that the controversy in the present batch of writ petitions concerns the same issue of law as settled in the case of Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) regarding the dispute between the jurisdiction of Faceless and Jurisdictional Assessing Authorities. Consequently, the settled proposition of law governs these cases. Based on the joint prayers and consensus between the parties, the Court quashed the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, declaring them illegal. The respondents were granted liberty to proceed via the mode of Faceless Assessment, in accordance with the judgment in Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra). The period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court was to be excluded for the purpose of faceless assessment proceedings. Any issues of limitation were to be decided by the Assessing Officer in terms of Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Court also clarified that any other unadjudicated issues could be agitated again, and all future proceedings under the Faceless Assessment Scheme must be strictly in accordance with law.