2024 (7) TMI 1192

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging notice dated 30 March 2024 issued by respondent no.1 to the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), and also a prior notice and order under Section 148A (b) and an order passed thereon under Section 148(A)(d) of the Act. The Assessment Year in question is AY 4. It is apparent that the impugned notice dated 30 March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the order of the same date under Section 148A (d) of the Act are issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") and not under the mandatory faceless mechanism as per the provisions of Section 151A of the Act. For a notice to be validly issued under Sectio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which means that the same is mandatory and is required to be followed by the Department and does not give any discretion to the Department to choose whether to follow it or not. That automated allocation is defined in paragraph 2(b) of the Scheme to mean an algorithm for randomised allocation of cases by using suitable technological tools including artificial intelligence and machine learning with a view to optimise the use of resources. Therefore, it means that the case can be allocated randomly to any officer who would then have jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that respondent no.1 was the random officer who had been allocated jurisdiction. 36. With respect to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Act in a faceless manner. In such a situation, not only clause 3 (b) but also the first two lines below clause 3 (b) would be otiose, as it deals with the aspect of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Respondents, being an authority subordinate to the CBDT, cannot argue that the Scheme framed by the CBDT, and which has been laid before both House of Parliament is partly otiose and inapplicable. ........" 37. When an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the Authority is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law and the person seeking to quash such an action is not required to establish prejudice from the said Act. An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provi....