Sundaram Multi Pap Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court heard a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated 30 March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner also questioned the prior notice under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d). A reply affidavit from the revenue was taken on record, and the matter was heard finally with consent of both sides.
The central issue before the Court was whether the impugned notices and orders were valid when they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of being issued through the mandatory faceless mechanism prescribed under Section 151A of the Act. The Court noted that the notices dated 30 March 2024, including the order under Section 148A(d), were issued by the JAO rather than through automated allocation under the faceless system introduced by the Central Government through a notification dated 29 March 2022.
The Division Bench judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was relied upon to determine the applicability of the faceless reassessment scheme. The earlier ruling clarified that the faceless mechanism under Section 151A applies both to assessment/reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and to issuance of notice under Section 148. It held that automated allocation is mandatory, leaving no discretion to the Department to bypass the scheme. The judgment also rejected the revenue’s argument that the scheme applied only to assessment proceedings and not to the issuance of notice under Section 148. The Court emphasized that the scheme constituted subordinate legislation tabled before Parliament and therefore could not be partially disregarded.
