Bombay High Court
Perfect Marketing And Advertisement … vs Income-Tax Officer-13(1)(1) on 12 August, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2024:BHC-OS:12618-DB
944-WPL 24561-24.DOC
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 24561 OF 2024
Perfect Marketing & Advertisements Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner
Vs.
Income Tax Officer, 13(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate i/b. Shashi Bekal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Khanchandani with Mr. Eshaan Saroop for Respondents.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.
DATED: 12 August, 2024
P.C. :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the
Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed to challenge a notice dated 06 April 2022 (” impugned notice”)
issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(“the Act”), and also the underlying prior notice and order under Section
148A(b) and Section 148A(d) of the Act, respectively. The reassessment
under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated in respect of returns filed by
the Petitioner-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
Page 1 of 6
12 August, 2024
944-WPL 24561-24.DOC
3. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the impugned notices
dated 17 March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed
thereon under Section 148A(d) dated 06 April 2022 and the consequent
notice dated 06 April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are all
issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) and not by a Faceless
Assessing Officer (“FAO”), as is required by the provisions of Section 151A
of the Act.
4. To give effect to the provisions of Section 151A, the Central
Government has issued a Notification dated 29 March 2022 whereby a
faceless mechanism has been introduced. Thus, necessarily in resorting to a
procedure under Section 148A and the consequent notice to be issued
under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to adhere to
the provisions of Section 151 read with the Notification. Thus, for a notice
to be validly issued for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act, the
Respondent-Revenue would need to be compliant with Section 151A,
which has been interpreted and analysed in detail by a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors. 1(“Hexaware”). The Division Bench
has clearly declared the law as follows :
“35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent
1 (2024) 464 ITR 430
Page 2 of 6
12 August, 2024
944-WPL 24561-24.DOCjurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under
Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or
reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned
to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29 th March,
2022, then it is to the exclusion of the other. To take any other
view in the matter, would not only result in chaos but also render
the whole faceless proceedings redundant. If the argument of
Revenue is to be accepted, then even when notices are issued by
the FAO, it would be open to an assessee to make submission
before the JAO and vice versa, which is clearly not contemplated
in the Act. Therefore, there is no question of concurrent
jurisdiction of both FAO or the JAO with respect to the issuance of
notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Scheme dated 29th
March 2022 in paragraph 3 clearly provides that the issuance of
notice “shall be through automated allocation ” which means that
the same is mandatory and is required to be followed by the
Department and does not give any discretion to the Department to
choose whether to follow it or not. That automated allocation is
defined in paragraph 2(b) of the Scheme to mean an algorithm for
randomised allocation of cases by using suitable technological
tools including artificial intelligence and machine learning with a
view to optimise the use of resources. Therefore, it means that the
case can be allocated randomly to any officer who would then have
jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act. It is
not the case of respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 was the
random officer who had been allocated jurisdiction.
36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the
notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so
framed is applicable only ‘to the extent’ provided in Section 144B
of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance
of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice
cannot be issued by the FAO as per the said Scheme, we express
our view as follows:-
Section 151A of the Act itself contemplates formulation of
Scheme for both assessment, reassessment or
recomputation under Section 147 as well as for issuance of
notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Scheme
framed by the CBDT, which covers both the aforesaid
aspect of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act cannot
be said to be applicable only for one aspect, i.e.,
proceedings post the issue of notice under Section 148 of
the Act being assessment, reassessment or recomputation
under Section 147 of the Act and inapplicable to the
issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The
Scheme is clearly applicable for issuance of notice under
Section 148 of the Act and accordingly, it is only the FAO
which can issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act
Page 3 of 6
12 August, 2024
944-WPL 24561-24.DOCand not the JAO. The argument advanced by respondent
would render clause 3(b) of the Scheme otiose and to be
ignored or contravened, as according to respondent, even
though the Scheme specifically provides for issuance of
notice under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner,
no notice is required to be issued under Section 148 of the
Act in a faceless manner. In such a situation, not only clause
3(b) but also the first two lines below clause 3(b) would be
otiose, as it deals with the aspect of issuance of notice under
Section 148 of the Act. Respondents, being an authority
subordinate to the CBDT, cannot argue that the Scheme
framed by the CBDT, and which has been laid before both
House of Parliament is partly otiose and inapplicable.
……..”
37 When an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the
Authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad
in law and the person seeking to quash such an action is not
required to establish prejudice from the said Act. An act which is
done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statue, itself
causes prejudice to assessee. All assessees are entitled to be assessed
as per law and by following the procedure prescribed by law.
Therefore, when the Income Tax Authority proposes to take action
against an assessee without following the due process of law, the
said action itself results in a prejudice to assessee. Therefore, there
is no question of petitioner having to prove further prejudice
before arguing the invalidity of the notice.
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. In the present case, it is apparent that the Respondent-Revenue has
not complied with the Scheme notified by the Central Government
pursuant to Section 151A(2) of the Act. The Scheme has also been tabled
before the Parliament and is in the character of subordinate legislation,
which governs the conduct of proceedings under Section 148A as well as
Section 148 of the Act. In view of the explicit declaration of the law in
Hexaware, the grievance of the Petitioner-Assessee insofar as it relates to an
invalid issuance of a notice is sustainable and consequently, the very manner
Page 4 of 6
12 August, 2024
944-WPL 24561-24.DOC
in which the proceedings have been initiated, vitiates the proceedings.
6. Learned Counsel for both the parties agree that the proceedings
initiated under Section 148 of the Act would not be sustainable in view of
the judgment rendered in Hexaware. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-
Assessee has also drawn our attention to a recent decision of this Court in
Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors.2, whereby in similar circumstances, this
Court has allowed the petition considering the provisions of Section 151A
of the Act.
7. In the light of the above discussion, and as there is no dispute that the
JAO had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, the Writ Petition is
accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus :
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ, order or direction, calling for the records o f
the Petitioner’s case and after going into the legality and
propriety thereof, to quash and set aside (i) Reassessment Order
dated March IS, 2024 passed under section 147 read with
section 144 of the Act (Ex-A); (ii) Penalty Notice dated March 15,
2024 issued under section 270A of the Act (Ex-B); (iii) Notice of
Demand along with the computation issued under section 156 of
the Act dated March 15, 2024 (Ex-C); (iv) Notice under section
148 of the Act dated April 06, 2022(Ex-D); (v) Order dated
April 06, 2022, passed under section 148A (d) of the Act(Ex-
E); (vi) Notice under section 148A(b) o f the Act dated March 17,
2022 (Ex-F).”
8. We make it clear that having disposed of this petition on the ground
2 Writ Petition (L.) No. 16918 of 2024 dt. 2-07-2024
Page 5 of 6
12 August, 2024
944-WPL 24561-24.DOC
of non-compliance with Section 151A of the Act, we have not expressed any
opinion on the other issues raised in the Writ Petition. The other questions
raised in this petition are not being answered since it is not necessary to do
so.
9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
Page 6 of 6
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin 12 August, 2024
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 19/08/2024 15:46:59