Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/05/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)

Notice Issued Under Section 148 by JAO Is Invalid as It Ought to Have Been Issued Under the Faceless Regime as per Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Notable Propositions:

1. Time Limitation Aspect U/S 149(1) First Proviso AY 2015-2016 Held Time Barred on 31.03.2022: “Section 149(1)(b) of the erstwhile provisions provided a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. For the relevant assessment year, being Assessment Year 2015-2016, the 6th year expired on 31st March 2022. The notice under Section 148 of the Act, in the present case, is issued on 27th August 2022, i.e., clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 read with the first proviso to the said section.” Also, held “Hence, if a notice is not within the time prescribed under the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, then such period cannot be extended by the fifth proviso and sixth proviso.” “In view of the aforesaid, the impugned notice dated 27th August 2022 is clearly barred by the law of limitation.”

2. Violation of CBDT “DIN” Circular 19/2019: Held Notice U/S 148 Is in Violation of the Same and to Be Quashed in Toto: “Admittedly, there is no DIN mentioned in the notice u/s 148.” It is the petitioner’s case that the notice is invalid and bad in law in view of the Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019 issued by CBDT. A separate intimation letter also dated 27th August 2022 was issued. “We agree with the petitioner that this letter cannot validate the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 27th August 2022.” “Therefore, as held in Ashok Commercial Enterprises (Supra) and Tata Medical Center Trust (Supra), the impugned notice is clearly invalid and bad in law.” “Therefore, the impugned notice dated 27th August 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act is invalid and bad in law as the same has been issued without a DIN.”

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Author Bio

Mr.Kapil Goel B.Com(H) FCA LLB, Advocate Delhi High Court advocatekapilgoel@gmail.com, 9910272804 Mr Goel is a bachelor of commerce from Delhi University (2003) and is a Law Graduate from Merrut University (2006) and Fellow member of ICAI (Nov 2004). At present, he is practicing as an Advocate View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Notes of account do form part of Balance Sheet: Supreme Court Bombay HC Quashes AY 2013-14 Notices Post 31-03-2021, Rules TOLA Not Applicable PCIT Central not competent authority u/s 12AB(1) to pass order on registration of Trust No Denial of Concessional Tax Rate Due to Technical Glitch on ITBA portal Invalid Reasons: Gujarat HC Quashes Assessment Reopening View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

  1. MAHENDRA AGARWAALA says:

    Proof reading should have been done before uploading the article. There is absence in sentence formation. Spelling mistakes are also rampant. Vital words are missing in several sentences turning statements senseless. Please take care.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031