9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g substantive relief is extracted below : (a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or any other directions thereof, under writ or any other directions thereof, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against Respondents, to quash and set aside : i) The approval u/s 151 of the IT Act, 1961 granted by the Respondent No.4 (EXHIBIT-'C'). ii) Respondent No. 3's Notice dated 30.06.2021 u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2025-16 (EXHIBIT-'B'). iii) Respondent No.1's Order dated 29.07.2021 of the IT Act, 1961 passed u/s 148A (d) of the IT Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 (EXHIBIT-'G'). iv) Notice dated 29.07.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 1 u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16 (EXHIBIT-'H'). 3. The Petitioner claims to be a domestic company inter alia engaged in the business of trading and export in pharmaceutical products, namely hard gelatin capsules and printed foils. The Assessment Year in question is 2015-16. The Petitioner filed its return of income for the said assessment year on 20 October, 2015 declaring an income of Rs.3,95,99,830/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w which had fallen for consideration of the Court and relevant to the facts of the present case are Question Nos.2 and 4, which read thus : 2. Whether the notice dated 27th August, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act? 4. Whether the impugned notice dated 27th August 2022 is invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Act? 7. The Division Bench, in the context of issue of limitation and considering the effect of the provisions of Section 149, more particularly the first proviso, held that for the Assessment Year 2015-2016, 6th year expired on 31 March, 2022, and the notice under Section 148 of the Act being issued on 27 August, 2022, was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 read with the first proviso. It was observed that such position would also stand covered by the decision in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2024) 158 taxmann.com 367 (Bombay). The relevant observations of the Court in this regard are required to be noted, which are extracted below : 24 .. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, i.e., for assessment years where the period of limitation had already expired on 1st April 2021 is not sustainable. The interpretation canvassed by the Revenue is clearly contrary to the plain language of the proviso. When the language in the statute is clear, it has to be so interpreted and there is no scope for interpreting the provision on any other basis. The taxing statue should be strictly construed. [Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. vs. DCIT]. 8. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Revenue would not dispute the position that as in the present case the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 29 July, 2022, the issue would stand squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) and the impugned notice accordingly would be required to be held as barred by limitation, applying the provisions of Section 149 read with the first proviso. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the impugned notice dated 29 July, 2022 to contend that the same has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO"), namely Income Tax Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause 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. The argument advanced by respondent expressly makes clause 3 (b) otiose and impliedly makes the whole Scheme otiose. If clause 3 (b) of the Scheme is not applicable, then only clause 3(a) of the Scheme remains. What is covered in clause 3(a) of the Scheme is already provided in Section 144B (1) of the Act, which Section provides for faceless assessment, and covers assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
