Ashruba Shrirang Garad vs The Principal Commissioner Income Tax ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 22719 Bom

Bombay High Court

Ashruba Shrirang Garad vs The Principal Commissioner Income Tax ... on 5 August, 2024

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2024:BHC-AUG:17596-DB


                                                                          7919.24wp
                                                (1)

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            4 WRIT PETITION NO. 7919 OF 2024

                              ASHRUBA SHRIRANG GARAD
                                          VERSUS
                   THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND
                                         OTHERS
                                               ....
                Mr R. R. Chandak, Advocate for Petitioner
                Mr Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondents

                                         CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                         AND
                                                 Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 5th August, 2024

PER COURT:

1. We have heard the learned Advocates for the

respective sides. Several issues have been raised in this Petition,

inter alia, that the impugned notice could not have been issued by

the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and which could have

been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 151(A) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2. The learned Advocates for the respective sides submit

that the judgment dated 03/05/2024, delivered at the Principal 7919.24wp

Seat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs.

the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), settles

this issue. The notice could not have been issued, save and

except, by the Faceless Assessing Officer. If it is not issued by the

FAO, this Court has ruled in Hexaware Technologies (supra),

that such notice is unsustainable and, accordingly, the notice was

quashed and set aside.

3. It is, thus, obvious that the notice being not in

accordance with the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961, the view taken in Hexaware Technologies (supra),

would be applicable to this case.

4. In view of the above and considering the conclusions

drawn in Hexaware Technologies (supra), the notice issued u/s

148 would be unsustainable. The same is, therefore, quashed and

set aside. Any further demand notice or penalty notice in

furtherance thereof, would also not survive and stands set aside.

5. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is

disposed off. Needless to state, all the contentions of both the 7919.24wp

sides, save and except, those which are covered by the Hexaware

Technologies (supra), and which are available to the parties in a

proceeding, which can be initiated by the FAO under the scheme

framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, are left open.

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

sjk