9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024 ("impugned notice") issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 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. 3. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the impugned notice dated 31 March, 2024 under Section 148 of the Act was 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. To give effect to the provisions of Section 151A, the Central Government has issued a Notification dated 29 March 2022 whereby a faceless mechanism has been introduced. Thus, necessarily in resor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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, 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 prej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly agrees that this proceeding would stand covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors. 8. 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 in terms of prayer clause (a), which read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
