Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. Vs Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court has set aside reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The court’s decision, delivered today, reaffirms that under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the JAO is divested of the authority to issue such notices.
The petitioner, Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd., challenged a notice dated March 28, 2024, issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an order dated April 24, 2024, passed under Section 148A(d) based on that notice, and a subsequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, all aimed at reopening the assessment for AY 2017-18.
Core of the Challenge: Jurisdiction Under Faceless Assessment
The central argument presented by Ms. Sathe, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued by the JAO, despite the existence of the Faceless Assessment Scheme. This scheme, implemented under Section 151A of the Act and further detailed by a Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notification, shifts the jurisdiction for such actions away from individual jurisdictional officers.
The petitioner’s counsel specifically referred to a prior decision by a co-ordinate bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay). She contended that the present case falls squarely under the principles laid down in Hexaware Technologies.
