9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ("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 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer ("FAO"), as is required by the provisions of Section 151A of the Act. 5. To give effect to the provisions of Section 151A, the Central Government has issued a Notification dated 29 March 2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 that the case can be allocated randomly to any officer who would then have jurisdiction to issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent, 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, the said act of the Authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Assuran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or notified under the Income Tax Act falls for completion. The limitation under the Income Tax Act, 1961(erstwhile Section 149) for reopening the assessment for the AY 2013-14 expired on 31st March 2020. Hence, Notification No.20/2021 did not apply to the facts of the present case, viz., reopening notice for the AY 2013-14. Therefore, the Revenue could not issue any notice under Section 148 beyond 31st March 2021 and hence, even the relate back theory of the Revenue could not safeguard the reassessment proceedings initiated after 1st April 2021 for AY 2013-14. 36. Therefore, in the present case, as the foundation of the entire reassessment proceeding, viz., the notice issued in June 2021 itself was barred by limitation in view of non-ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e new Act came into force. It was held that section 297 (2) (d) (ii) of the 1961 Act was applicable only to this cases where the right of the Income-tax Officer to reopen an assessment was not barred under the repealed Act. This decision is broadly in line with the opinion of Das and Kapur JJ. in Prashar's case (1963) 49 I.T.R. (S.C.) 1; (1964) 1 S.C.R. 29(S.C.) For AY 2013-14, the time limit to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act had already expired on 1st April 2021. On the said date, the assessee had a vested right, which de hors the 1st proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act, could not be taken away and thus, based on the well settled principles of law, the reopening of the AY 2013-14 after 31st March 2021 is invalid, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
