Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court heard a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging notices issued under Sections 148, 148A(b), and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the petitioner’s returns for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) rather than a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), in contravention of Section 151A of the Act and the related CBDT notification dated 29 March 2022, which mandates faceless procedures for reassessment and issuance of notices.
The Court examined the provisions of Section 151A, the March 2022 Notification, and prior judicial pronouncements, including Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. ACIT, which clarified that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and FAO. Notices under Section 148 must be issued by a randomly allocated FAO, and non-compliance with the prescribed scheme renders the proceedings invalid. The Court rejected Revenue’s arguments that the scheme applied only to assessment or reassessment, emphasizing that Section 151A covers issuance of notices under Section 148, and subordinate authorities cannot partially disregard the scheme.
The Court further observed that when an authority acts contrary to the statutory provisions, the act itself causes prejudice to the assessee. There is no requirement for the assessee to demonstrate additional prejudice. In this case, the Revenue failed to comply with the faceless scheme, rendering the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 invalid. The petitioner’s grievance regarding the invalid issuance of notice was therefore upheld.
