9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he will file Vakalatnama within one week from today. Statement accepted. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 3. 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 under Section 148A(b) and Section 148(A) (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. 4. From a plain reading of the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 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 29 th 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware and also Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 457 ITR 647. 8. 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. Writ Petition (L.) No. 16918 of 2024 dt. 2-07-2024, whereby in similar circumstances, this Court has allowed the petition considering the provisions of Section 151A of the Act. 9. 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 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
