2026 (3) TMI 236 - HC - Income Tax

Jurisdictional defect in reassessment notices can warrant writ relief and interim stay where issuing authority or notice period is flawed.

Notices under the Income-tax regime were challenged on two grounds: that issuance by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the faceless ... Validity of reassessment proceedings - notice issued by JOA or AOA - Jurisdictional challenge to Section 148 notice - faceless assessing officer jurisdiction - mandatory minimum notice period for filing return under Section 148 - alternative remedy not a bar to writ on jurisdictional questions HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that an arguable and substantial jurisdictional challenge was raised: Hexaware Technologies Ltd. [2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] holds that after 29 March 2022 the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 and only the Faceless Assessing Officer may do so. That precedent has not been set aside by the Supreme Court and the proposed legislative amendment (Section 147A) has not been brought onto the statute book to negate that law. On these facts the challenge to the authority of the officer issuing the Section 148 notice is an arguable jurisdictional question warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction rather than relegation to alternate fora. [Paras 2, 3, 5] Writ petition entertained on this jurisdictional ground and Rule issued for consideration of the validity of the Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Mandatory minimum notice period for filing return u/s 148 -Alternative remedy to writ on jurisdictional questions - HELD THAT: - Second is on the issue that only 30 days time was given to the Petitioner to file his Return of Income when the law mandates that a minimum period of 3 months ought to be granted, and which according to the Petitioner, itself precludes the Assessing Officer from proceeding further in the reassessment proceedings. Once these are the issues, we find that this is not a fit case wherein we should relegate the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy Final Conclusion: The High Court entertained the writ petition on two substantial jurisdictional grounds attacking the Section 148 notice (issue of issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to the Hexaware line of authority, and the contention that the notice unlawfully allowed only 30 days instead of the statutory minimum three months), declined to relegated the petitioner to alternate remedies, issued Rule and granted interim stay of the reassessment order, notice of demand and penalty show cause notice pending final disposal. Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid because it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer in light of Hexaware Technologies Ltd.; (ii) Whether the Section 148 notice was invalid for giving only 30 days to file a return when, after amendment with effect from 1 April 2023, a minimum period of three months is required.Issue (i): Whether the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction because it emanated from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer as held in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.Analysis: The petition raises an arguable jurisdictional question concerning the validity of issuance authority for notices under Section 148 after Hexaware Technologies Ltd.; the judgment in Hexaware has not been set aside by the Supreme Court and Section 147A has not been brought into force to negate the said decision. The challenge therefore engages a substantive jurisdictional principle that the writ forum can entertain notwithstanding the availability of alternate remedies.Conclusion: In favour of Assessee. The writ petition is maintainable on this jurisdictional issue and Rule is issued.Issue (ii): Whether the Section 148 notice is bad for providing only 30 days to furnish a return contrary to the requirement of a minimum three-month period under the amended provision effective 1 April 2023.Analysis: The petition presents a substantive contention that the amended statutory regime mandates a minimum three-month period to furnish a return and that a notice allowing only 30 days thereby lacks the mandatory statutory requirement. This raises an arguable jurisdictional defect going to the validity of the reassessment proceedings.Conclusion: In favour of Assessee. The challenge to the adequacy of the notice period is maintainable and forms part of the grounds on which interim relief is granted.Final Conclusion: The Writ Petition raises arguable jurisdictional questions on both the issuing authority and the requisite notice period under Section 148 and is fit for judicial adjudication; interim relief is granted staying the operation of the impugned reassessment order, notice of demand and related penalty show-cause notice pending final disposal of the petition.Ratio Decidendi: Where substantive jurisdictional defects are plausibly pleaded in relation to the authority issuing a notice under Section 148 and to mandatory notice-period requirements, a writ court may entertain relief notwithstanding availability of alternate remedies and may grant interim relief pending final adjudication.