Case Law Details
Perur Builders Private Limited Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Because Proceedings Were Not Under Faceless Assessment Scheme; Reassessment by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Invalid Due to Mandatory Faceless Assessment Procedure; Income Tax Reassessment Notice Set Aside Because Faceless Assessment Scheme Was Not Followed; Faceless Assessment Scheme Held Mandatory for Reassessment Proceedings by Madras High Court; Reassessment Proceedings Quashed Since Division Bench Already Settled Faceless Assessment Issue; Madras High Court Allows Appeal Because Reassessment Was Not Conducted Through Faceless Mechanism.
The Madras High Court considered an appeal concerning whether reassessment proceedings could be conducted by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or only under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The appellant relied on the Division Bench judgment in TVS Credit Services Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, where conflicting views of Single Judges had been resolved. The Division Bench had held that reassessment proceedings must be carried out only in the manner prescribed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. Applying the said decision, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and quashed the reassessment notice. The Court passed no order as to costs and directed closure of the interim applications.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.N.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr.H.Siddarth, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The issue raised in this appeal is as to whether assessment proceedings could be drawn by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.
3. The aforesaid issue is answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of TVS Credit Services Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others [Order dated 24.6.2025 in WP No.22402 of 2024 and batch cases]. In fact, conflict in the view taken by learned Single Judges led to reference made before the Division Bench and it has been answered that the reassessment could be done only in the manner provided under the Faceless Assessment Scheme.
4. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed and the reassessment notice stands quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.
Author Bio
