Notices under Section 148 invalid if they bypass Section 151A faceless assessment scheme dated 29 March 2022

HC held that notices under Section 148 issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer are invalid where they bypass the faceless assessment regime mandated by Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022, since jurisdiction is exclusively vested either in the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or the Faceless Assessment Officer, not concurrently. The impugned notice was set aside as outside the statutory faceless mechanism, and relief granted to the assessee. The Court noted Hexaware is under challenge in SC and advised a cautious approach to avoid generating further litigation between revenue and assessees.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice issued under Section 148A(b) and order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer outside faceless mechanism - Similar petitions granted relief based on previous decisions - Concerns regarding ongoing litigation due to Supreme Court challenge - Need for a different approach to prevent further litigation - Admission of petition and grant of interim reliefs.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief to quash a notice under Section 148A(b) and an order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with a stay on the impugned notice. The primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the faceless mechanism provided under the law. The petitioner relied on previous decisions by the Court and argued that similar relief should be granted in this case. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contentions, noting that several petitions with similar issues had been allowed previously.

The Court expressed concern over the increasing number of cases seeking similar reliefs based on the Court's previous decisions. It noted that both the Revenue and the assessee were facing ongoing litigation due to challenges to the Court's decisions before the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted the burden on both parties in terms of time and expenditure to defend such proceedings. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement on the legal issues involved was awaited.

In light of the situation and to prevent further litigation between the parties, the Court decided to adopt a different approach. It admitted the petition and granted interim reliefs, including a stay on the notice under Section 148 and any related proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for a deviation from the previous approach in handling cases covered by the relevant decisions. It provided liberty to the parties to apply after appropriate orders are passed by the Supreme Court or its final decision in the matter.

In conclusion, the Court acknowledged the complexities and implications of the ongoing litigation arising from its previous decisions. It aimed to address the concerns of both parties by granting interim reliefs and signaling a shift in approach to prevent further legal disputes.

---