Prakash Pandurang Patil Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court heard a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 5 April 2022, along with a prior notice under Section 148A(b) and an order under Section 148A(d) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner argued that these actions were invalid because they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not through the mandatory faceless mechanism required under Section 151A of the Act and the CBDT’s notification dated 29 March 2022.
Read SC Judgment: Reassessment Notices by Jurisdictional AO Invalid After Faceless Regime: SC
The Court noted that both the Section 148 notice and the Section 148A(d) order were issued by the JAO and not via the automated faceless system. The Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, which had interpreted Section 151A and the 29 March 2022 Scheme. In that judgment, the Court held that the faceless mechanism is mandatory and that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Under the Scheme, issuance of notices must occur through automated allocation, using algorithm-based random distribution, leaving no discretion to the department. The Court emphasized that the Scheme clearly applies to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and that only the FAO, not the JAO, has jurisdiction to issue such notices.
