TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025. For the Respondent: Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024, 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664 & 14674 of 2025; and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.12773 & 12437 of 2025. COMMON ORDER: (PER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY) These are batch of writ petitions involving the same issue. Therefore, they are clubbed together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. A. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor of India. Ms. Rutuja Pawar, learned counsel, along with Mr. Dundu Sashank Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 26645, 26654, 26667 of 2024; Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.28497 and 26788 of 2024; Mr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12437 of 2025; Mr. Govinda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9561 of 2025, Mr. K.S.S.K.V. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms. Mytri Indukuru, learned counsel for the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eddy (supra) and which was subsequently also made applicable in the case of "international charges" by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad and Others Writ Petition No.13353 of 2024 & Batch, decided on 24.07.2024, wherein again the core question raised for adjudication was whether the show-cause notices under Section 148 of the Act in matters relating to "international charges" would stand exempted or excluded from the faceless procedure and has to be quashed only on that ground. 8. Apart from the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court dealing with similar circumstances in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom). However, in all these writ petitions, the counsel representing the Income Tax Department vehemently contended that these cases since assigned to "central charges", there is slight difference on facts and law so far as the applicability of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) at the first instance, and Sri Venkatara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7508, wherein reiterating the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and Talati LLP (supra), the Delhi High Court had dismissed the batch of writ petitions. 14. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General for evaluation of data, there is a mandatory requirement of JAO and when it is a case arising out of search and seizure, keeping in view the provisions of Section 153D of the Act, the safest inference that can be drawn is that there is a concurrent jurisdiction available on the JAO as also the FAO and for evaluation of the data also the services of JAO would be required. It was also contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the provisions of the Act have to be implemented keeping in consideration the harmonious construction and that the provisions of the statute has to be applied by giving a beneficial construction. 15. It was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 144B of the Act requires that the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the selected cases for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and contended in an appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal (1 supra) as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (1 supra)." 18. From the aforesaid judgment and the principles of which have been reiterated in a large number of writ petitions subsequently filed, it would be evidently clear that the view of this High Court and the ratio laid down was that on and after coming into force of the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and with the introduction of the amendment to Section 148 of the Act wherein it was envisaged that the assessments have to be done by way of an automated faceless mechanism, all proceedings of assessment drawn subsequently have to be by following the same mechanism. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax Act and which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law. Therefore, we propose to modify the judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts as under: (i) The respective impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The respective Assessing Officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the asseessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the asseessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A9(a) be dispensed with as a onetime measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from April 1, (iii) The Assessing Officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after following the due procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees" ;" 19. Followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. (Emphasis supplied) 21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act introduced certain exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 144B. Faceless Assessment: (1)... (2) The faceless assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons, or incomes or class of incomes, or cases or class of cases, as may be specified by the Board. (Emphasis Supplied) CBDT's Order dated 06.09.2021: F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-I Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) ***** North Block, New Delhi Dated, the 6th September, 2021. ORDER Subject:- Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) providing exclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order of CBDT dated 06.09.2021 give exemption from following the mandatory faceless procedure only in relation to passing of assessment orders in cases of central charges and international tax charges. Any other interpretation would amount to doing violence with the language employed in the scheme/notification dated 29.03.2022, Section 144B(2) of the Act and order dated 06.09.2021. Since in our view, the plain and unambiguous language used in the scheme and order dated 06.09.2021 shows that the notice under Section 148 does not fall within the 'exception', the judgments cited by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department are of no assistance. The Taxpayer is nowhere distinguished between NRIs and Indian Citizens. The notice issued under Section 148 must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether or not the Taxpayer is NRI/Indian Citizen. Thus, the second limb of argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department deserves to be rejected. 27. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and are of the opinion that the aforesaid underlined expression used in clause 3(b) of the scheme dated 29.03.2022 do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....set aside those proceedings. 25. The entire basis of the learned Additional Solicitor General seems to be the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, since there is an authoritative decision on the said issue by this very High Court, the judicial propriety requires for this Bench to honor the view taken by the Division Bench of this High Court itself. 26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal vs. G.M., Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. 2003 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, dealing with an issue of not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, held at paragraph No.9 as under: "9. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that the Revenue Authorities within the State could refuse to follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision on the ground that the decision of some other High Court was pending disposal by this Court, it would lead to an anarchic situation within the State. If at the time when the power under Section 263 was exercised the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had not been set aside by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years." A plain reading of the aforesaid Section would clearly indicate that though Section 153A is a non-obstante clause, but nowhere does the said Section speaks of an exception carved out from Section 151A, which in itself was brought in by way of amendment to the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. This in other words means that until and unless there is a specific exception carved out from the applicability of Section 151A every assessmen....