9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. ( 2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . The impugned notices would be required to be held to be illegal and invalid as and there is no dispute that the JAO had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. We, accordingly, allow this petition in favour of assessee. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr. Sameer G. Dalal. For the Respondents : Mr. Arjun Gupta. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER G.S. KULKARNI, J.) 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 is filed challenging notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computation 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) woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings under Section 148A as well as Section 148 of the Act. Thus, in view of the explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), the grievance of the petitioner- assessee insofar as it relates to an invalid issuance of the impugned order and the notice is required to be accepted. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that in this view of the matter, the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act would not be sustainable and are rendered invalid in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). 6. Apart from the petitioner s contention that the proceedings would stand covered by the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra), another contention as raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, the Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The present petition relates to the AY 2016-17, and as the impugned order and impugned notice are issued beyond the period of three years which elapsed on 31 st March, 2020 the approval as contemplated in section 151(ii) of the Act would have to be obtained which has not been done by the Assessing Officer. The impugned notice mentions that the prior approval has been taken of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 8 ( PCIT-8 ) which is bad in law as the approval should have been obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the specified authority has to be obtained in accordance with the law existing when the sanction is obtained and, therefore, the sanction is required to be obtained by applying the amended section 151(ii) of the Act and since the sanction has been obtained in terms of section 151(i) of the Act, the impugned order and impugned notice are bad in law and should be quashed and set aside. 8. The decision in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was subsequently followed in Vodafone Idea Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai Ors. Writ Petition No. 2768 of 2022 dated 6 February, 2024 where the Court made the following observations: 3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April, 2022 state th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
