Arihant Jewellers Private Limited V. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes and Chief Commissioner Of Income -Tax and Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax and Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax and The National Faceless Assessment Centre

WPT/157/2024

AI Insights

Arihant Jewellers Private Limited, through its director Mansukhlal Jain, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against various income tax authorities and the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petition sought to quash an order under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act and to stay proceedings under the impugned notice. The respondents argued that the final assessment order was appealable and cited a precedent where the writ petition was not entertained due to the availability of an appellate remedy. The petitioner contended that the notice issued was illegal and without jurisdiction, referencing a pending similar issue before the Supreme Court. The court decided not to entertain the writ petition at this stage, directing the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800151 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Officer and Ors Vs. Smt. Kamala Ojha, Union of India and Ors Vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 148 A of the Act, Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAO
• Keywords: Appealable order; Faceless assessment; Illegal notice; Income Tax; Jurisdiction
• Section: 151; 148A

Judgement Text

"1 2025:CGHC:13967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 157 of 2024 Arihant Jewellers Private Limited (Through Director Mansukhlal Jain, S/o Late Shri Gyanmal Jain,) Age About 61 Years Shop No. 2/6, Akash Ganga Supela, Bhilai, Tah And Distt.- Durg, C.G.- 490023 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2 - Chief Commissioner Of Income -Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 3 - Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 4 - Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle 1 (1) Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bungalows, Bhilai Distt. Durg C.G. 490001 5 - The National Faceless Assessment Centre Through The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Adv. on behalf Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Adv. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 24.03.2025 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- \"(i) To call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. (ii) To declare illegal and quash the impugned order passed under clause (d) of Section 148 A of Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.03.25 11:05:56 +0530 2 the Act (Annexure-P/1) and all the proceedings flowing through said notice. (iii) To stay all proceedings under the impugned notice (Annexure-P/2) and direct Respondent No.5 not to pass final orders till disposal of the present petition. (iv) To pass such other and/or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.\" 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue would submit that a final assessment order has been passed on 10.03.2015 by the Faceless Assessment Officer and the said order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the \"Act 1961\"). He submits that the petitioner may avail such remedy and raise all grounds available to him in the said appeal. He also places reliance in the matter of Income Tax Officer and Ors Vs. Smt. Kamala Ojha passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.293/2017 {Neutral Citation No.2019:CGHC:17284:DB} and refers to Para 33 which reads thus:- \"33. To sum up the matter, when there existed reason to belief which is formed on the basis of material available having nexus with the subject, writ Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition more so when assessment orders have already been passed during pendency of the writ petition, therefore, we set aside the order passed by the writ Court and relegate the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal against the reassessment order which may be filed within a period of 30 days from today. The writ petitioner would be at liberty to raise all grounds both factual and legal in the said appeal. The appellate authority shall entertain the appeal for decision on merits without raising objection as to limitation.\" 3 3. He also submits that the aforesaid order passed in the writ appeal was also challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.38102/2019 and same has been disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2019. In view of such submission, he submits that at this juncture this petition may be disposed of as it becomes infructuous. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act 1961 is bad in law as it has been issued in violation of provision contained in Section 151 of the Act 1961 read with CBDT's Notification dated 29.03.2022. He also submits that the similar issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills [SLP No.27736/2023]. He submits that the subject matter concerning issuance of notice is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Faceless Assessment Officer has no jurisdiction to pass an order particularly when the said notice is prima facie illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the issue involved in the case, particularly, considering that the order which has been passed by the Faceless Assessment Officer is appealable under the Act of 1961 and also considering that issue involved in the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme, I am not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. However, the petitioner may raise all such grounds available to him in the appeal including the ground that when the notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessment Officer then Faceless Assessment Officer is not competent to pass the subsequent order. It is 4 also observed that if any appeal is filed by the petitioner, the concerned Authority is expected to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay "