Anil Kumar Dogra Vs ITO (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
In the case of Anil Kumar Dogra Vs. Income Tax Officer, the Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Officer. The Court observed that, according to Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, introduced on November 1, 2020, and the notification dated March 28, 2022, the notice must be issued through an automated allocation system based on a risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT. The Court noted that the Jurisdictional Officer was not randomly allocated as required by the scheme. This stance aligns with similar judgments from the Telangana and Bombay High Courts, which held that reassessment proceedings must adhere to the faceless procedures outlined by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Consequently, the Court stayed all further proceedings related to the notice until the next hearing date, allowing the petitioner to challenge the jurisdictional validity of the notice.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Notice to the respondents. Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents.
2. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the impugned notice, Annexure P-1 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the 1st respondent, who is the Jurisdictional Officer, is wholly without jurisdiction having regard to Section 151-A, introduced in the Income Tax Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.11.2020 and the notification issued on 28.03.2022 thereunder, which specifically contemplates that there would be automated allocation system in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT and it is not the case of the revenue that the 1st respondent is an officer who has been so randomly allocated as per the Scheme.
