Case Law Details
Santosh Mehta Vs ITO (Punjab and Haryana High court)
Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Santosh Mehta vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, ruled that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (NFAC) was invalid. The petitioner challenged the notice dated 12.03.2024 for AY 2020-21 on the grounds that it was issued without jurisdiction, referring to the CBDT Circular dated 29.03.2022, which grants exclusive authority to NFAC for issuing such notices. The court relied on its previous rulings in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India (CWP No. 21509-2023), both of which addressed similar jurisdictional issues.
The government did not contest the petitioner’s claim, and the court disposed of the writ petition in line with its earlier judgments. The decision reinforces the requirement for tax authorities to adhere to the prescribed framework under the Income Tax Act and CBDT notifications. It further clarifies that jurisdictional AOs cannot issue reassessment notices post-2022, ensuring procedural compliance in reassessment proceedings.
Similar view is taken in the case of Rajinder Mehta Vs ITO (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and conseuqential proceedings, for AY 2020-2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.
5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 12.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.
6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024
8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
