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.”
Comments are closed.