[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Tomy Joseph vs Union Of India on 1 December, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15583/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15583 of 2025
=============================================
TOMY JOSEPH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS. ANKITA S. SHAH(18002) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. At the outset, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan
Sanghani has submitted that the issue involved in the present
petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated
17.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.9909 of 2022
and allied matters. However, learned advocate Ms. Ankita
Shah, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has doubted the
legal precedent of the Division Bench laid down in the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.09.2025 passed in
Special Civil Application No.9909 of 2022 and allied matters.
She has further submitted that there are certain other issues
directly connected with the controversy raised in the present
petition, more particularly the jurisdiction of the Assessing
Officers, namely the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), which have not been
appropriately dealt with by the Division Bench in the
aforementioned judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15583/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
2. Learned advocate Ms. Ankita Shah has further submitted
that the issue answered by the Division Bench does not
reconcile with the statutory scheme of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (in short, "the Act"). It is further submitted that there was
no new tangible material warranting the formation of
satisfaction and the reopening was based solely on an audit
objection, amounting to a mere change of opinion, hence, the
impugned action deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted
that mechanical and cryptic speaking orders were passed
under Section 148A(b) of the Act and therefore, the same are
required to be quashed and set aside.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Sanghani,
appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the
primary issue raised in the present petition, more particularly
in Ground No.3.1, relating to the jurisdiction of the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in the wake of the Faceless
Assessing Unit (FAU), as mandated under Section 151(A) of the
Act and Section 148A(b) of the Act, has already been decided
by the Coordinate Bench.
4. So far as the other grounds regarding absence of new
tangible material and mere change of opinion are concerned,
he has submitted that the petitioner has not placed any
supporting facts and in case, the petitioner is aggrieved, an
appropriate remedy is available before the Assessing Officer. It
is further submitted that all the relevant details have already
been recorded by the Assessing Officer while issuing the order
under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15583/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
6. It is fairly admitted by learned advocate Ms.Shah that the
issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer
under the faceless regime as well as the regime existing prior
thereto, has already been answered by the Coordinate Bench.
However, according to her, the Coordinate Bench has
committed an error while passing the said judgment. It is
submitted that the statutory provisions under Sections 148 and
148A of the Act, have not been properly appreciated in
conjunction with the Notification dated 29.03.2022. However,
we are not inclined to take a divergent view, which is already
expressed by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment and order
dated 17.09.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.9909
of 2022 and other allied matters. The relevant findings are as
under: -
"31. Therefore, the logical conclusion which can be deduced
from reading of the provisions of the Act together with the
intention of the legislature and the Scheme, 2022, we are of the
opinion that so far as issuance of notice under Section 148 of the
Act is concerned, the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue
based upon the Office Memorandum of the Central Board of
Direct Taxes dated 20th February, 2023 which is even
considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court would be in line
of the legislative intent so as to operate the two aspects
separately, one by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the
Act by automated allocation and other by conducting assessment
or reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act in a
faceless manner to the extent as provided under Section 144B of
the Act.
32. In view of the above opinion, we are not analysing the
judgments rendered by the various High Courts as the line of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15583/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
reasoning adopted by us is totally different than what is adopted
by the various High Courts by interpreting the scope, intent and
impact of Section 144B of the Act which has been come into
statute book with effect from 01.04.2022.
33. In view of the foregoing reasons, so far as the issue, with
regard to the challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction to issue
the notice under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional
Assessing Officer, fails and the notices issued by the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act
after 01.04.2022 are held to be valid and legal."
7. Thus, the Coordinate Bench has categorically held that
the notices issued under Section 148A of the Act by the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after 01.04.2022 i.e. upon the
introduction of the Faceless Assessment Regime, are held to
be valid.
8. So far as the other grounds canvassed by learned
advocate Ms.Ankita Shah with respect to the order being an
unreasoned or non-speaking order, we have perused the same.
The Assessing Officer has examined in detail the issue relating
to the use of the properties of the present petitioner and has
incorporated the findings in Paragraph Nos.7.2 to 8.3 of the
order. Moreover, the petitioner has remedy of approaching the
Assessing Officer.
9. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is hereby
rejected.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
MAHESH/35
