9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware. [ 2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] As JAO had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice and that the issue was time-barred, the Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal. For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar. PC: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Affidavit in reply on behalf of the Respondent-Revenue is taken on record. 3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge a notice dated 30 June, 2022 ( 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 2013-14. 4. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the impugned order passed under Section 148A (d) dated 30 June, 2022 and the consequent notice dated 30 June, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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.1 that respondent no.1 was the random officer who had been allocated jurisdiction. 36. With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot be issued by the FAO as per the said Scheme, we express our view as follows:- Section 151A of the Act itself contemplates formulation of Scheme for both assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 as well as for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Scheme framed by the CBDT, which covers both the aforesaid aspect of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act cannot be said to be applicable only for one aspect, i.e., proceedings post the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act being assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs have been initiated, vitiates the proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for both the parties agree that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act would not be sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware. 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. 8. 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. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 367 (Bombay) ( New India Assurance ) wherein this Court has held that for the assessment year 2013-14, reassessment proceedings initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, it is well settled that a notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued in order to reopen the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was already barred under the pre-amended Act on the date when the new legislation came into force. In CIT V/s. Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF) the Hon ble Apex Court held : That raises the question whether that proviso could be applied without reference to any period of limitation. It is a well-settled principle that no action can be commenced has expired. It is unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this position. Does the fact that the second proviso says that there is no period of limitation make a difference? ***** In J.P. Jani, Income-tax Officer v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt (1969) 72 I.T.R. 595; (1969) 1 S.C.R. 714 (S.C.) this court held that the Income-tax Officer cannot issue a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in order to reopen the assessment of an assessee in a case where the right to reopen the assessment was barred under the 1922 Act at the date when the new Act came into force. It was held that section 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
