Shabana Aijaz Khan Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court heard a writ petition challenging a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer, as required by law. The petitioner relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that a notice issued by a non-faceless officer was fatally defective. The petitioner argued that this precedent squarely applied to the present case.
The Revenue opposed the petition, arguing that the Hexaware Technologies ruling should not apply because the current matter involved international taxation. Counsel for the Revenue further submitted that the Hexaware Technologies decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court and urged the High Court to keep the writ petition pending until the Supreme Court rendered its decision.
After hearing both sides, the High Court found no dispute that the impugned Section 148 notice was issued by the JAO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Court held that under the Hexaware Technologies ruling, such a defect was fatal. The Court rejected the Revenue’s contention that the ruling did not apply to international taxation matters. It relied on another Division Bench judgment, Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, which held that the mandatory faceless procedure applied equally to central charges and international taxation. The Court noted that Paragraph 17 of that judgment clearly stated that the faceless mechanism notified under Section 144B read with Section 151A could not exclude such categories.
