Loading High Court cases…
1,247 orders · Page 9 of 25
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's reasoning was based on its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 13, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to rule differently in the pending Special Leave Petition concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The parties' rights and contentions were kept open, and the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 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, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated March 9, 2024, as it was based on an invalid notice. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The parties' rights and contentions were kept open, and the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.
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 understanding that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), aligning with previous judgments of the same Court in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be invalid. 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 reassessment order passed pursuant to this 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 March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), making it invalid, following the precedent set in Shree Cement Limited, 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. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 7, 2024, was also quashed and set aside as it could not be sustained. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that this notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which has been held to be bad and invalid by this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited, following 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. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated May 28, 2023, could not be sustained and was also 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 March 26, 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, 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 Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 5, 2024, was also quashed and set aside as it could not be sustained. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding it to be invalid. This decision was based on the precedent set by the 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 bad in law. The Court also quashed and set aside the consequential assessment order dated March 5, 2024, as it could not be sustained if the underlying notice was invalid. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to alter the position in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court, in agreement with the submissions made by both parties, quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, 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 is covered by previous judgments of the Court, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The petition was disposed of with liberty as prayed, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. The Court also noted that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2024, 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 prior judgments, specifically Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice. This liberty is contingent on the outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. If the Apex Court's decision modifies or overturns the High Court's rulings in the cited cases, the revenue will have the right to revive the notice. The court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of both parties were kept open. Any reassessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which, following the High Court's own precedents in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., renders such a notice invalid. 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. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 9, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement to file an application to withdraw the appeal within two weeks.
The High Court, acknowledging the submissions of both parties, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated March 31, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court agreed that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, citing its own precedent 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 petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 21, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated February 20, 2025. The 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 and invalid in previous judgments of the Court, specifically referencing 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 these judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The Court also accepted the petitioner's statement that an application to withdraw the appeal would be filed within two weeks.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated February 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated March 16, 2025. The primary reason for quashing the notice was that it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which the Court held to be invalid based on its prior judgments in 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 relied upon by the petitioner. The Court also noted that the petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention that such a notice, if issued by a JAO and not an FAO, is bad in law, citing its own 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's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn these precedents. Consequently, as the Section 148 notice was held invalid, the consequential assessment order dated March 7, 2024, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 30, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential assessment order dated March 9, 2024. The Court followed its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., holding that a notice issued by a JAO instead of an FAO is invalid. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also accepted the petitioner's statement to file an application to withdraw the appeal within two weeks, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties for the present.
The Tribunal respectfully agreed with the findings of the co-ordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra). The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not have been issued and the Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for adjournment, stating that if the Revenue succeeds before the Supreme Court, it can request the Apex Court for revival of the notice. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 23rd March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of with a clarification that if the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra), it may take such steps as advised, in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 22, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the established precedent in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the Revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related cases like Sharda Devi Chhajer and Shree Cement Limited) interferes with these judgments. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal respectfully agreed with the findings of the co-ordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra). The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not have been issued by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material seized during a search; instead, the Assessing Officer ought to have issued a notice under Section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's request for an adjournment sine die, stating that if the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in the SLP concerning Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, they can request the Apex Court for the revival of the notice. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 23rd March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The Tribunal clarified that if the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court, it may take such steps as advised, in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 29, 2022, 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, concerning the issuance of the notice by a JAO instead of an FAO, was covered by previous judgments of the High Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices to be invalid. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with these precedents. 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 Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 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 2023, issued under Section 148, was indeed issued by the JAO and not the FAO. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised by the petitioner, including the absence of DIN, and kept all rights and contentions of the parties open, subject to any future intervention by the Apex Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the notice was issued by a JAO instead of an FAO, which, according to the Court's previous pronouncements in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., would render such a notice invalid. The Court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to alter the position of law in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 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 petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law. This decision was based on the settled position of law as per the 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 reasoning is that the notice must be issued by the competent authority as prescribed by the Act and relevant rules. Consequently, the notice dated 19th March 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act, was quashed and set aside. The Court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, and noting that issues could be revisited if the Apex Court interferes with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice.
The High Court held that the information available on the Income Tax Department's system, alleging a cash deposit of Rs. 50,40,000 in the petitioner's bank account for Assessment Year 2015-16, was erroneous. The Court relied on the petitioner's bank statement, which showed cash installations totaling Rs. 27,75,000, and a subsequent certificate from Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank confirming that the petitioner had only one savings bank account during the relevant financial year, with deposits amounting to Rs. 27,75,000. The Court found that the Revenue had not provided any evidence to counter the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated March 26, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated March 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with all consequential notices and orders. The ratio decidendi is that if the Revenue's foundational information for initiating reassessment proceedings is demonstrably incorrect and unsubstantiated by any counter-evidence, the proceedings are vitiated.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that the Revenue agreed that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by this Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with these precedents. The Court, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, granted the liberty as prayed by the Revenue. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court held that the mandate of Section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be strictly followed, and there is no way to circumvent it. The Court further held that the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act, as doing so would weaken Section 151A and potentially lead to its diminishing activation. For assessment and reassessment under Sections 147, 148, and 148A, in light of the sanction under Section 151A, adherence to the algorithm-based random assessing system is mandatory. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside concerning the jurisdiction of JAOs for issuing them. The Court allowed the respondents to issue fresh notices in compliance with the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as the assessing officer. The time spent during the litigation was excluded for computing the limitation for fresh notices, if needed. Both parties were granted liberty to raise their issues before the Assessing Authority.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court's decision was based on the established precedent of this Court in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which held that notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The court granted the revenue's request for liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending Special Leave Petition concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) alters the legal position. The court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the established precedent 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 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 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 July 20, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that a notice issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, is invalid, citing its own precedents in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the revenue the liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to rule differently in the pending SLP concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to the quashed notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and must be quashed and set aside. The Court relied on its 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 the position of law to be clear on this point. Consequently, the notice dated 14th March 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act, was quashed and set aside. The Court did not delve into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, and stating that issues could be revisited if the Supreme Court interfered with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the understanding that the Court had previously held notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) to be invalid, citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with these judgments. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties for future stages.
The Tribunal made factual findings that the objects mentioned in the trust deed were not of a business or commercial nature. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the trust had not carried out any such activities. This was supported by the statement of income and expenditure accounts for the last five years, which did not indicate any such business activities. The Tribunal noted that for objects to be considered commercial, the dominant intention of the trust must be profit-making, which was not found to be the case. Regarding the alleged activities carried out by the assessee not being in accordance with the trust's objects, the Tribunal found, based on a pamphlet mentioning events organized by Ms. Ritu Agarwal, that it could not be stated that any activity was conducted by the assessee trust against its objectives. Consequently, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order.
The Tribunal (High Court) quashed and set aside the notice dated June 30, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the ground raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was covered by its own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment and granted the Revenue liberty 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. All other rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), and that such a notice is considered bad in law, following its own previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. However, the court granted liberty to the revenue 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 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 Rajasthan High Court, bench at Jaipur, quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, 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 previous judgments, including Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the SLP filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (or related cases) alters the prevailing legal position. 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 High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that the notice, having been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was invalid, citing its own prior decisions in Shree Cement Limited, 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 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 Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties regarding the applicability of existing judgments, decided to quash and set aside the notice dated July 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that notices issued by JAOs instead of FAOs are invalid. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments in the pending SLP. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, 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 High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 25, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous decisions 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 the petitioner's prayer to quash the notice, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Consequently, the assessment order dated March 18, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in the cited cases. No other grounds were decided.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated July 26, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the revenue that the issue was covered by the High Court's own judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on 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, the revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The Court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties and disposed of the petition. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the penalty order, being a consequence of the re-assessment order, could not survive once the underlying notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The Court noted that the re-assessment notice itself had been quashed in a separate writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2999/2024) decided on the same day, September 8, 2025. The reason for quashing the notice was that it was issued by the Jurisdiction Assessing Authority (JAO) rather than the Faceless Assessing Authority (FAO), following established precedents. Since the foundation of the penalty proceedings (the re-assessment order, which stemmed from the quashed notice) was invalidated, the penalty order was also rendered unsustainable. Accordingly, the penalty order dated September 20, 2024, was quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 established by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 26th March 2023, issued under Section 148, was indeed issued by the JAO and not the FAO. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised in the petition. It also noted that if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., parties would be at liberty to rekindle all issues. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated March 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the prevailing view that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid, as previously held in cases like Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice, as prayed, in the event the Supreme Court were to overturn these judgments. The petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also disposed of. The Court also stated that if any re-assessment order were passed, it would also stand quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid. Firstly, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the findings in the impugned order regarding the escapement of income from assessment, specifically the disallowance of long-term capital gain as bogus and its addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE, were not even mentioned in the show cause notice. This violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Relying on its own previous decision in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, the Tribunal held that such a notice is invalid, and consequently, any assessment order based on an invalid notice cannot be sustained. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the assessment order dated March 27, 2024, the notice dated March 28, 2023, issued under Section 148, and the consequential notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). The revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the relevant High Court judgments.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 articulated in the High Court's 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 25th March 2023 was indeed issued by the JAO, making it invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open the possibility for parties to revisit these issues if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The operative direction was to quash the notice.
The Court respectfully agreed with the findings in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra). The Court declined the Revenue's request to adjourn the matter sine die pending the decision of the SLP. The reasoning provided was twofold: firstly, the Court agreed with the findings of its co-ordinate bench in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, and secondly, it stated that if the Revenue were to succeed in the Apex Court, it could request the Apex Court for the revival of the notice. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 24th March 2020 was quashed and set aside. The Court clarified that if the Revenue succeeds in the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, it may take such steps as advised, in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner was covered by its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held such notices issued by JAOs to be invalid. However, considering the revenue's submission regarding the pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the legal position. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of, and any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated December 20, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Court found the conduct of the Settlement Commission to be unacceptable, although it refrained from making specific observations. The Court directed the Interim Board for settlement, constituted under Section 245AA of the Act, to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners. The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the petitioners' application. The operative direction is to the Interim Board to decide the application.
The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the understanding that the High Court had previously held such notices issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, to be invalid, referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's view. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of. The Court explicitly kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, 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 in Shree Cement Limited and Sharda Devi Chhajer, which followed the principle laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revenue, while agreeing with the petitioner on this point, sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn the aforementioned judgments. The Court granted this liberty, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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 affirmed by the Rajasthan High Court in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court found that the notice dated 14th March 2024, issued under Section 148, was indeed issued by the JAO. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside this notice. The Court explicitly stated that it was not delving into other grounds raised in the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties, and noting that if the Apex Court were to interfere with the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, parties could revisit the issues.