9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate a/w. Mr. Mrunal Parekh, Mr. Rishabh Malhotra and Mr. Soumya Singh, Fereshte Sethna i/b. DMD Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Prathmesh Bhosle. 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 praying for the following reliefs: a) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 16 March, 2023 under Section 148A (b) of the Act; impugned order dated 29 March, 2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act; impugned notice dated 29 March, 2023 under Section 148 of the Act issued/passed by respondent no. 1, initiating the reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20; b) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 148 of the Act on the ground that income has escaped assessment. It is submitted that, hence the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short JAO ) had no authority to issue the impugned notice. It is also Mr. Mistry s submission that prior to issuance of impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, the JAO has also issued notice under section 148A (b) dated 16 March, 2023 and an order on the same was passed immediately on 29 March, 2023. It is his submission that considering the applicability of the provisions of Section 151A (1) read with faceless scheme as notified and made applicable under the notification dated 29 March, 2022, such notice as also the order passed under section 148A (b) also would be required to be held to be illegal. 4. In the context of the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under section 148, Mr. Mistry has drawn our attention to the facts of the case, which according to him are quite gross. It is Mr. Mistry s contention that the petitioner is a limited partnership incorporated under the laws of United States of America which had invested an amount equivalent to INR 34,99,78,225/- in Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rejoinder, if any, to be filed and copy served by 21st June 2024. 3. Stand over to 1st July 2024. 4. Until 31st July 2024, there shall be ad-interim in terms of prayer clause (e), which reads as under: (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, for an order restraining the Respondents, its officers, subordinates, agents from relying upon and/or taking any steps in furtherance or in connection with Impugned Assessment Order, Impugned Demand Notice and Impugned Penalty Notice for A. Y. 2019-20; 5. The impugned assessment order and demand notice are dated 18th April 2024 and the penalty notice is dated 19th April 2024. 8. It is clear from the aforesaid order that reply affidavit was to be filed on or before 11 June, 2024 and rejoinder, if any, was required to be filed by 21 June, 2024. Today we are almost 2 months ahead of the time granted to the respondents to file reply affidavit, having been expired. We also find that there is no application filed on behalf of the respondents seeking extension of time to file reply affidavit, much less, a reply affidavit being prayed to be filed. Thus, Mr. Mistry would be correct in his contention that the respondents have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such order would not attract the provisions of Faceless mechanism. The said order reads thus: F.No. 187/3/2020-ITA-1 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) North Block, New Delhi 110001 Dated the 31 March, 2021 Order under sub-section (2) of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for specifying the scope/cases to be done under the Act regarding In pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby specifies that all the assessment proceedings pending as on 31.03.2021 and the assessment proceedings initiated on or after 01.04.2021 (other than those in the Central Charges and International Taxation charges) which fall under the following class of cases shall be completed under section 144B of the Act. a. where the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was/is issued by the (erstwhile) NeAC or by the NaFAC; b. where the assessee has furnished her/his return of income under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142 (1) or section 148(1); and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, has been issued by the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings post the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act being assessment, reassessment or recomputation 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) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
