Bombay High Court

Abu Moosa And Co. India Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2 1 1 on 9 August, 2024

Author: G. S. Kulkarni

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

  2024:BHC-OS:12455-DB
          Digitally signed
          by SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
                                                                                                    905.WP.3398.2024.DOC
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR  Date:
          2024.08.16
          13:14:55 +0530


                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                                      WRIT PETITION NO.3398 OF 2024

                             Abu Moosa & Co. India Pvt. Ltd.                                 ... Petitioner

                                           Versus
                             Income Tax Officer Wd.2(1)(1) & Ors.                            ...Respondents



                             Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Ms Sweta Upadhyay i/b. India Law Alliance
                             Advocate for Petitioner.
                             Mr. N.C. Mohanty, Advocate for Respondents.

                                                         _______________________
                                                      CORAM:       G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                   SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

                                                      Date      :     August 09, 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 31 March, 2024 ( "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 dated

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 2017-18.

August 09, 2024 Shraddha Talekar PS

905.WP.3398.2024.DOC

3. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the impugned notice

dated 20 March, 2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and indeed

the underlying order dated 31 March 2024 under Section 148A(d) of the

Act are 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. It is now well settled that 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 jurisdiction 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

(2024) 464 ITR 430

August 09, 2024 Shraddha Talekar PS

905.WP.3398.2024.DOC

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:-

5. 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 and 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

August 09, 2024 Shraddha Talekar PS

905.WP.3398.2024.DOC

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]

6. Therefore, it is apparent that the Respondent-Revenue is not in

compliance with the Scheme notified by the Central Government pursuant

to Section 151A(2) of the Act. The Scheme has also been tabled in 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 in which the proceedings

have been initiated, vitiates the proceedings.

7. 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