TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the notice under section 148 was not issued in a faceless manner which is in contradiction with the mandatory requirements of the provisions of section 151A of the Act 3. Without prejudice to the ground no. 2, the assessment made by learned AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is liable to be quashed as the notice under section 148A and 148 of the Act were issued by the ACIT Circle 1 Karimnagar, who is not even the jurisdictional AO (as per e-filing portal, the JAO is ITO Ward 2, Karimnagar). 4. The assessment made by learned AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is liable to be quashed as the assessment is not conducted in faceless manner which is in contradiction of the mandatory requirement as applicable in the facts of present case i.e. section 148 notice and entire subsequent proceeding is after 29.03.2022 i.e. effective date of mandatory faceless reassessment unless otherwise specified. 5. The assessment made by learned AO and upheld by CIT(A) is liable to be quashed as the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 is 5 passed by the officer other than the officer who initiated the assessment i.e. issue notice u/s. 148 and the order is passed without fresh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded sufficient opportunities, failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the view taken by the AO, dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. As the assessee appellant, despite having been intimated about the hearing of the appeal, has not put up an appearance before us, we are constrained to proceed with and dispose of the appeal based on the material available on record as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. 7. We have heard the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, "Ld. Sr-DR") and perused the orders of the authorities below. 8. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 07/04/2022, has been issued beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Act as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. We say so, for the reason that, as per the pre-amended section 149(1)(b) of the Act, a notice under section 148 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany (P) Ltd., v. Union of India; High Court of Rajasthan in Shree Cement Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax; High Court of Bombay in Godrej Industries Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, and by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Sri Sai Dhurga Balaji Health and Educational Welfare Society v. the Income Tax Officer. All these decisions relate to the Assessment Year 2017-18 except the case of Godrej Industries Ltd., (supra) which relates to the Assessment Year 2014-15. 7. On the second issue, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has distinguished the decision rendered by the High Court of Patna in Chandra Shekhar v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax as it relates to the Assessment Year 2020-21 where the application of the first proviso to the amended Section 149 of the Act introduced with effect from 01.04.2021 cannot be applied. Based on the said submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act may be quashe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ks of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of- (i) an asset; (ii) expenditure in respect of a transction or in relation to an event or occasion; or (iii) an entry or entries in the books of account, Which has escaped assessment amounts to or in likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1" day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act or as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. For the purposes of appreciating the first proviso, the un-amended Section 149 of the Act is also extracted in the foot note 10 Time limit for notice. 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the mome chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. I if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. Explanation In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is not worth acceptance. Section 148A of the Act lays down the procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act whereas Section 149 of the Act prescribes strict time limit within which notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued in the prescribed circumstances. The Revenue is therefore obliged to adhere to the timeline prescribed under Section 149 of the Act for issuance of such notice and undertake the procedure before issuance of notice under Section 148A of the Act. 13. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to opinion of the Delhi High Court. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Godrej Industries Ltd., (supra) are extracted hereunder: "15. The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of the Act, which in the present case is 31 July 2022, by which time the Finance Act, 2021 is already on the statute and in terms thereof, no notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15 could be issued on or after 1" April 2021 based on the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act. Therefore, the fifth proviso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a) or (b) of the Act, the extension of time as prescribed in fifth and/or sixth proviso would be considered. The Court further held once. The notice is otherwise within the period of limitation, thereafter one has to see whether the said limit is within the prescribed restriction provided in first proviso or not. If the notice is beyond the restriction period, the notice is invalid, and the fifth and/or the sixth proviso cannot apply at this stage to extend the period of restriction as per first proviso. Hence, if a notice is not within the time prescribed under first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, then such period cannot be extended by fifth or sixth proviso. In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Court had relied upon another judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 160 taxmann.com 13 (Bombay)/(2024) 338 CTR (Bom) 25, which was also authored by one of us (the Chief Justice), where paragraph No. 15 reads as under: "15. The validity of a notice must be judged on the basis of the law existing as on the date on which the notice is issued under Section 148 of th....