Case Law Details
Mark Studio India Private Limited Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and quashed notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. The learned Single Judge had earlier dismissed the petition holding that such notices would remain valid even if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Before the Division Bench, the appellant relied on several decisions following the Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which held that notices required to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer would be invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Counsel for the Revenue accepted the legal position and requested that liberty be reserved to revive the notices if the Supreme Court interferes with the Bombay High Court judgment in Hexaware Technologies. The Division Bench quashed the impugned notices dated 15.04.2024 while keeping open the rights and contentions of the Revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This appeal impugns an order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition on the ground that even if the notice has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessment Officer and not Faceless Assessment Officer, the notice issued under Section 148A/148 of the Income Tax Act will be valid.
3. Ms. Vardhini Karthik submitted that this Court has, in many matters, held, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax1, that notice that has to be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer has to be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer and if issued by Jurisdictional Assessment Officer, the same is not valid.
4. Ms. Premalatha, who takes notice for the Revenue, states that the law as proposed by Ms.Vardini Karthick is correct and therefore, the Court may quash and set aside the notices, but keep open liberty of the Revenue to re-ignite the notices in case the Apex Court interferes with the order and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies (supra).
5. Keeping open the Revenue’s rights and contentions, as noted above, the impugned notices dated 15.04.2024 are quashed and set aside. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is closed.
1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.); 464 ITR 430 (Bom.)
Author Bio
