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)
