Reassessment notice u/s 148A(1) invalid as wrong officer issued it under faceless scheme rules

ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal, holding the reassessment proceedings invalid due to a jurisdictional defect in the notice issued under s. 148A(1). The Tribunal noted that, post the notified faceless reassessment scheme, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, contrary to the governing notification. Following its earlier coordinate Bench ruling on an identical issue, ITAT quashed the reassessment order, declaring the notice bad in law, while leaving it open to the Revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether a notice issued under Section 148/148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the Ministry of Finance Notification dated 29.03.2022, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, is without jurisdiction and renders the consequential reassessment order invalid.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148/148A(1) issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer post Notification dated 29.03.2022

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal noted the applicability of the Ministry of Finance Notification dated 29.03.2022, which contemplates issuance of notices under Section 148 through the faceless regime and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

2.2 The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, wherein notices issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite the said Notification, were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Tribunal recorded that in the present case the notice under Section 148A(1) was issued on 30.03.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, despite the Notification dated 29.03.2022 requiring the mechanism of faceless issuance.

2.4 The Departmental Representative was unable to controvert the assessee's contention that, in view of the Notification and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions (including the decision relied upon in the earlier coordinate Bench order and the judgment in the case referred to by the assessee), such notice could not be validly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

2.5 The Tribunal referred to and followed its own prior decision on an identical issue, where it had held, after considering the same Notification and jurisdictional High Court judgments, that a notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after 29.03.2022 was "bad in the eyes of law" and "without jurisdiction", leading to quashing of the reassessment.

2.6 The Tribunal observed that there are multiple decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, including the judgment cited by the assessee, consistently holding that post-Notification, such notices must be issued under the faceless scheme and that notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are invalid.

Conclusions

2.7 The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(1) on 30.03.2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction in view of the Notification dated 29.03.2022 and the binding decisions of the jurisdictional High Court.

2.8 Consequently, the reassessment order based on such invalid notice was quashed.

2.9 With the reassessment itself quashed on jurisdictional grounds, the assessee's appeal was allowed and no further adjudication on other grounds was required.

---