AI Insights
The case involves Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, the petitioner, challenging the notices and orders issued by the Income Tax Department under Sections 148 and 148A(d) for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that these actions were contrary to the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act as per the Finance Act, 2021, which require faceless assessments and automated allocations. The respondents, representing the Income Tax Department, contended that the notices were valid under the unamended Act and that the jurisdictional officer was correct in issuing them. The court examined the compliance with the amended provisions and the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal, leading to the conclusion that the Department did not follow the required legal framework.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 683814 (HC-TELANGANA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
26-09-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"[ 3386 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO: '11942 OF 2023 Between: Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, S/o, Late Shri PrabhuDayal Agantal, Aged about 69 Years, # 2A, 8-2-41511, Road No. 4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500034. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2(1),Hyderabad, 514, Sth Floor, Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilingampally(M), Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084 The Piincipal Commissioner of lncome Tax - 2, l.T. Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dt.31.03.2023, passed by the '1st respondent for A.Y. 2019-20, vide Document ldentification No.(DlN) ITBA/AST/F/148A12022-2311O5181 1380(1), as void, illegal, and contrary to the Provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Order u/s 14BA(d) of the 2 Act,dt.3l.03.2023passedbythelstrespondentforAY'2019-20'vide Document ldentification No.(DlN) ITBA/AST/F/148A 12022-231 1051811380(1). lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, dated 31 .O3.2O23, passed by the 1st respondent for A.Y. 2019-20, vide Document tdentification No. (DlN)ITBAlASr,Fl148At2O22-231 1051811380(1 ), as well as the notice issued U/s. 148 dated 31.03.2023 of the Act, vide Document ldentification No.(DlN)ITBA/AST/S/1481t2o22-23/105'1813536(1),asvoid,illegal,and contrary to the Provisions of lncome-tax Act and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently set-aside/quash the same' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANMOHAN DUNDU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR lT The Court made the following: ORDER t ]'HE HON'BI,E SRI JUSI'ICE P.SAM KOSHY ANT) THE [ION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.l 1942 of 2023 COMMON ORDER (par l*ttt hla [i'i .hrsti* I>.SAM KOSHYl Heard Mr.Manmohan Dundu, learned counsel lor the pctil_ioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel lbr rhe rcspondcnts. Perused the material on record 2. lt has been inlormed that one of the preliminary objections raised b1. the petitioner has been recently answered by this Division Bcnch in of 2022 and batch which was decidetl r ide ordcr t.+.09.1011 .l- lrr r icu ot'thc dccision of this Division Bench in the albre said rirrt petitions. and since the preliminary objection being thc saure. rhe impugned notice and the consequential orders srands set as ide ,'t1r.rashed. Ilowever, the right of the Department w.ould stand rese r''\"cd as has been protected in the batch matters which iicrc dccided orr 14.09.2023 in W.P.Nos.25903 of 2022 and barch 1. ., ccordinqlv. this writ petition stands allowed I No l-5903 2 petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs 5. As a setprel. uriscellancous applicatiorrs pc:tding if any ir this ,,,r,rit SD/-B.SARASWATHI ASSISTAT REGISTRAR s*rou oFFrcER 1. The Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle 2(1),Hyderabad' 514' sth Floor, dignature Towers, Sy. No. 6(P) of Kondapur, Opp Botanical Gardens' Serilingampally(M), Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084. 2. The Principal 6ommissioner of lncome Tax - 2,1.T. Towers, AC Guards, . Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004. //TRUE COPY// To, 3. One CC to SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr SC FOR lT [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies BSR sB,{^_=-_ I HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912023 ORDER WP.No.11942 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS N |. -, . ;.! j .-- ,.'--. 17 oill 2m \"i.'i! -... , ), .,/t \"ll .l o -) (1,) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Writ Petltion I{os.259O3 24214 2427L 32075 32090 32688 33050 33402 33474 3410() 34101 34340 34598 34604 3,4661.34698, 34746. 34836. 35774.3659E, 36828.36945. 374t4. 37491, 37536.43427. 45,047 of 2022. Writ Petition Nos.15383.47. 3719. 3721, 3729, 3738, 9695. 11599. 144a5. 14492 ts42l L5736 L5745 15768 t5779 16164 16223 16224. L6?61, 16783, 19966. 2o,9 14, 20929, 20959 and 23556 of2023 COMMON ORDER: lper Hon'bLe Si Justice P.SAM KOSH$ These batch of writ petitions have been frled assailing the order passed by the respondent No.l/The Income Tax Offrcer dated 29.O7.2022, vide DIN & Notice No.ITBA/COM /Fl17 12022- 23/1044297902(1) for the assessment year 2016-17, under Section 148-A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The challenge is also to the consequential notice dated 29.07.2022, und'er Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, as well, issued by the respondent No. I himself. 2. Heard Sri A.V, Krishna Kaundinya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A-V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent- Department. 2 3. Though the aforesaid two orders have been assailed on various grounds, nonetheless, the foremost objection which the petitioners have raised is that of the two orders being in contravention of the amended provision of the Income Tax Act, 196 I . 4. The objection speciflcally was that once when the respondent No.l have decided to go in for re-assessment of the return submitted by the petitioner/ assessee and notice for the same under Section 148,at of the Act was issued, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. I to have adhered to the amended provision of the nct. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it was required to get the re-assessment done in a faceless manner, rather than being assessed by the jurisdictional officer as has been provided under Section 7448 of the Act and in accordance wrth the scheme enacted by the Central Government under Section 151A of the Act. There were other objections also raised by the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions. But, since the aforesaid objections rvas substantially touching the jurisdictional issue itsetf, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner requested for considering and deciding the aforesaid preliminary objection hrst. Further only if required and in case, the preliminary objection is held to be not sustainable, would there be a requirement for this Court to proceed furthr:r and decide the other issues raised. 3 5. In view of the request made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the petitioner and which was accepted by the Iearned counsel for the respondent, we proceed to decide the aforesaid jurisdictional issue as a preliminary issue and only if required would we then proceed further to decide the other issues. 6. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner which is being considered as the foremost issue is, \"whether the impugned order under Section l48A (d) as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued by the local jurisdictional officer, rather than the faceless assessment.\" The issue in other words was \"whether was it not mandatory for the authorities concerned to initiate proceedings pertaining to re-assessment under Section 148A and 148 of the Act in a faceless manner, (rather than being proceeded by the local jurisdictional oflicer), as is envisaged under Section 144El as also under Section l51A of the Act.\" 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner stressed hard on the fact that subsequent to the amendment incorporated in the Income Tax Act, I 96 t , with effect from 29 .O3.2O22 all the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under Section 148A and 148 of the Act were all mandatorily to be proceeded in a faceless manner. Else, the same would amount to being violative of the Income Tax Act or in contravention to the procedure prescribed under law which is in force- 4 8. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner once when the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'CBITJ, have issued the notification dated 29 .O3.2O22, whereby a scheme called e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022 wlrich carne into force with effect from 29.03.2022 itself; the assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 and- the issuance of notice under Section 148A shall be done through the automated allocation. Further the notices, to be issued, have to be in a faceless manner as is provided under Section l44B of the Act. It was also contended that the re-opening proceedings first of all could not have been initiated after a gap of three (3) years. Secondly, re- opcning of the proceedings can only be permittect if the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment is ln()rc th:rn fifty Rs.5O,OO,O00/-. 9. lt was further contended by the learned Sen ior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No. t has acted in a mechanical and arbitrar5r fashion while issuing notic<:s through the jurisdictional officer. The said Act was without taking into consideration the amended provision under the Income Ta-x Act, 1961, as introduced under the Finance Act,2O2l.lt was also without proper verification of whether the so called income which has escaped assessment exceeds Rs.50,O0,OO0/- or morc. 5 1(). Learned counsel for the respondent-Department on the other hand opposing the petition submits that it is not the case where a notice has been recently issued to the petitioner subsequent to the amendment brought in to the Act. According to him in all these cases, notices were issued prior to the amendment which had come. As such, the proceedings also have been drawn in terms of the un- amended provision. Moreover, the fact that no further approval was required to issue notices at this stage by the Assessing Oflicer lends support to the contention of the respondent-Department that the action on the part of the jurisdictional officer in initiating the proceedings was proper, legal and justihed. 11. It was also the contention of the respondent-Department that under the provisions of the Act both the JAO as well as units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction- The Act does not distinguish between JAO or NFAC with respect to jurisdiction over a case. This is further corroborated by the fact that under Section 144El of the Act, the records in a case are transferred back to the JAO as soon as the assessment proceedings are completed. So, section l44B of the Act lays down the role of NFAC and the units under it for the specific purpose of conduct of assessment proceedings in a specifrc case in a particular assessment year. This cannot be construed to mean that the JAO is bereft of the jurisdiction over a particular assessee or with respect to procedures not falling under the ambit of Section 1448 of 6 the Act. Since, section 1448 of the Act does not provide for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, there can be no ambiguity in the fact that the JAO still has the jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act. 12. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Department that the said notification does not state whether the notice is to be the scope of the scheme with regards to the procedure covered by it and lays down the legal contours of how such procedures are to be carried out. It states that the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act shalt be through automated allocation in accordance with the risk maaagement strates,' and that the assessment shall be in a faceless manner to the extent provided uncler Section l44B of the Act. From the above, it is apparent that rn the procedure for re-assessment, as it exists as on date, both these can be followed. Therefore, it will be incorrect to state that the issuance of notice by the JAO is without jurisdiction. 13. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Department neither the Section nor the scheme dated, 29 -O3 -2022 speak about the detail specifics of the procedure to be followed therern. They lay down the general principles that should be followed so as to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability to the procedures contained therein. The said scheme lays down that the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act sl'rall be through 7 automated allocation in accordance with Section l44B ol the Act. It was also submitted that the CBIT has issued notiltc atiorr No.Ol 12022 dated 1 1.O5.2O22 containing guidelines for implementation of the Hontle Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Union of India and Others us. Ashrbh Aganual. Vide the said judgment, the Hon'lole Supreme Court revived nearly 9O,OOO notices issued under Section 148 between Ol.O4.2O2l to 3O.06.2021 re-opening assessment for the assessment year 2Ol3-14 ard subsequent years. It is to be stated that these notices were issued under the old provisions of re-opening. The Hontle Supreme Court had revived these notices quashed by certain High Courts by converting the notices issued under Section la8 (old) to notice under Section 148A (new) of the Act with a direction to continue the proceedings after following the procedure laid down under the provisions. As such, the instruction No.Ol /2022 of CBIT, the present notice under Section 148 dated 31.O7.2022 and the order under Section 148A(d) daled 29.07.2022 are valid actions on the part of the Department. 14. It was further contended that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not a final assessment order and the notice issued under Section 148 is only to commence the re-assessment proceedings and the assesse has the re-course of filing appeal before the CIT (Appeals) when the final order ofassessment is passed. 8 15. According to the learned counsel for the respondent- Department the order passed under Siition 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.O7 .2022 were passed/issued as per the provisions of the Act with appropriate sanction, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, and after considering the submissions of the assessee. It is submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as the order passed under Section i48A(d) of the Act is not an assessment order and only an order to determine whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 16. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal ol records, what is now required to be considered is the iactuai matnx of the case. Admitteciiy, the notices were issueci uncier Section 148 of the Act between OL.O4.2O21 to 31.06.2021 for re- opening of the assessments for the assessment year 2O13-14 and subsequent years. lnitially, these re-opening assessments were subjected to challenge before various High Courts and many of the High Courts had quashed the notices in the light of the subsequent amendment that had been brought to the Income Tax Act and the insertion of the new Section i.e. Section 148A. The decision of the t{igh Courts which had allowed the writ petitions of various other assessee's was subjected to challenge before the Hon'l,rle Supreme Court. Where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had tagged up all the 9 matters and passed the landmark decision in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTIIERS. VS. ASHISH AGARWALI. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the legal contentions raised at the bar, at paragraph No.7 held that the Finance Act, 2021, being of remedial and benevolent nature and having been substituted with a specific aim and object, more particularly, to protect the rights and interests of the assessee and the same being in public interest, held that they were in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts while holding that the benefit of the new provisions shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to the past assessment years, where notices have been issued under Section 148 on or after 01.O4.2O21 i.e. the date since when the Finance Act,2O2l, became enforceable. 18. However, while upholding the judgements of the High Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the fact that the Income Tax Department had issued approximately 9O,OOO notices under Section 148 of the un-amended Act and in all these cases, the Department would become remediless so far as re-assessment proceedings are concerned. Therefore, as a onetime measure invoking the powers conferred upon it under Section 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hontrle Supreme Court ordered that the notices under ' to72 qqq ta t sc 10 Section 148 which were issued by the Department should be considered to have been issued under Section 148A of ihe Income Tax Act i.e. new provision inserted by way of the Finance Act,2O2l, and permitted the Department to proceed further with the re-assessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act as per the Finance Act,2021. 19. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.7 and paragraph No.S. The relevant portion of which is being re- produced herein under: \"Thus, the netu prouisions substituted bg the Finance Act, 2021 beir,g remedtal and beneuolent in noture and substituted- with a specific aint and object to protect the nghts and interest of the (Ls.se.s.see os urcll as ond the so.me being in public interest, the respectiue High Courts haue rightlg held that the beneilt of neu) prouisions shall be made auailable euen in respect of the proceed ings relatlng to pas, assessment Uears, prouided. section 148 notlce hos been issued on or after Apnl 1, 2021. We are in complete agreemeftt LDith the uieu taken bg the uarinus High Courts [n hotding so. Hotueuer, ot the same time, the judgments of the seueral High Courts would result in rlo reassess/nent proceedings at a)1, euen if the same are pennksible under the Finarrce Acl 2O21 and as per substituted. sections 147. The Reucnue connot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reossessment proceedings cannot be fru-strated. It is true that due to a bona fide mi.stake and in uieut of subsequent extension of time uide uarious notifrcations, the Reuenue i-ssued- the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment ua-s enforced tutth effect from April 1, 202 I , under the unamended section 148. In our uieut the same ought not to haue heen issued under the unamended Act and ought to haue been ussuerl under tlle substituted prouisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income-to-y Act as per the Finance Ac| 2021. There oppears to be genuine non applicatton of the amendments as the officers of thc Rcueruue mag hante been under a bona fi.de belief that the 11 amendments moA not Aet haue been enforced.. Therefore, uLe are of the opinion that some leeuay must be shoun in that regard uhich the High Courts could haue done so. Therefore, instead of quashing and selting aside the reassessment notbes i-ssued under the unamended. prouisions of the Income-tax Act as those deemed to haue been i.ssued under section 148A of the Income- tox Act as per the neu.t prouisions of section 148y'. and the Reuenue ought ta haue been permitted. to Proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted. prouisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax Act a.s per the Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliatrce of oll the proced.ural requirements and the defences, which may be auailoble to the assessee under the substituted prouisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income tox Act and which mag be auailable under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law. ThereJore, uE propose to modifu the judgments and orders possed bg the respectiue High Courts as under : O The respectiue impugned section 148 noti.ces issued to the respectiue assessees slull be deemed to haue been issued under section 148A of the Income-tox Act as substituted bg the Finance Act, 2021 and. treated to be shotu cause notices in tenns of section 148A(b). The respectiue Assessing Offtcers shall within thirtg dags from todag prouide to the asseessees the infonnatinn and material reliecl upon bg the Reuenue so that the asseessees can replA to the notices utithin tun weeks thereofter ; (i4 The requirement of conductitrg ang en4uirg with the pnor approual of the specifted authoity und.er section 148A9(a) be d.tspensed with as a onetime mectsure uis-ri-uis tho-se notices uhich haue been issued. under section 148 of the unamended. Act from APril 1, (iil) Ihe Assessing Offtcers shall thereofter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after follouing the due procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect oJ each ol the concerned assessees\",' The Hon'ble Supreme Court further, in order to strike a balance between the rights of the Revenue as well as the respective assessee's ordered that the notices issued under Section 148 of the un-amended Act to be deemed to have been issued under Section l48A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2O2L, and also ordered for construing or treating the notices to be the show cause T2 notice in terms of Section l48A (b) while disposing of the batch matters. The Honble Supreme Court in its operative part gave the following directions in paragraph No.I0, which again for ready reference is being reproduced herein under: '[n uieu oJ the aboue and lor the reo-s,ons stated. aboue, the present appeols are allotted in part. The impugned common judgments ond orders passed bg the High Court of Judicature at Atlahabad in W. T. No. 524 of 2021 and other allied tax appeals/ petitions, i-s/ are herebg modi{ted and substituted as under (t) The impugned section 148 notrces i.ssued to the respectiue assessees uhich uere issued under unamended section 148 of the Income-tox AcL tDhich uere the subject matter of Lurit petitions before the uarious respectiue High Courts shaLL be deemed to haue been issued under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as substituted bg the Finance Act, 2O21 and constnted. or treated to be shou-cause notices in terms ol section ) 48A(b,1, The Assess ing Offber shal utithin thtrty clays from todag prouide to tlae respectiue asse€ssee.s mformation and materia.l reLied- upon bg the Reuerrue, so that the asse.ssees can reply to the shout- calrsc notices uithtn ttLto Lueeks lhereafter : I'he requircmt:nt o.f cotlducting ang enquiry, i.f required, u.ttth the prior approual of specified authoritg under section I48A(a) is hcrebg dtspensed uith as a onettme measure uis-A -uis those noticcs uLhich haue been issued und.er section 48 oJ the unamended Act from ApriL I , 2021 till date, including those uhich houe been quashed bg the Hlgh Courts. (i4 Euen othertuise as obserued hereinaboue holding ong enquiry uith the prior approuat of specifted authoity is not mand atorg but it as for the concemed Assessing Offtcers to hold uny anqutry, if required : (iil The Asscssing Officers shall therea,fter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the conccrned o.ssesce-s ; thereafter after follouing the procedure as required under section l48A mag issue notice undar section 148 (as substituted) ; ALI tle.f<'rtces which ttag be auaiLable to the assessees rncludirtg those auailablc under section 149 of the Income- (ex Act anrl alL rigltts and contentions which mag be auailqbk' to tha concernccl nsse-s-see-s and Reuc:nue under (iu) 13 the Finance Act, 2O21 and. in Laut, shall continue to be auaiLable. 20. Keeping the aforesaid view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note certain provisions of the Income Tax Act which stood amended with effect from OL-O4.2O21 by virtue of the Finance Act,2O2l. Section 144B inserted by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from 01.O4'2O21 provides for faceless assessment and sub-Section I of the said newly inserted Section 144B is an non-obstante clause. The relevant portion of sub- Section I of Section 144B necessary for adjudication of the preliminary issue under consideration is re-produced herein under: \"NotLuitlstanding angthing to the contrarA contained in ang other prouision of this Act, the assessmenf, reassessment or recotnputatton under sub section (3) of section 143 of under section 144 or under section 147 as the cose mag be uilh respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namelg:' o (it) (iir) the NatLonal Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected for the purposes oJ faceless assessment und.er this section tD a specifrc assessment unit through an au to mate d allocatio n sY s te m; tlre NationoL Faceless Assessment Centre shall intimote lhe assessee that assessment in his case shall be completed in accord.once with the procedure laid douLn under this section; a notice shatl be serued on the assessee, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under sub-section (2) of section 143 or und.er sub-section (1) of section 142 and the assessee mag file hi,s response to such notice uithin the date specified therein, to the National Faceless Assessment Centre uhich shall foruard the same to the as-sessment unit\"; 2t. In continuation to the aforesaid provisions, it would be relevant to take note of yet another provision of law i.e. sub-Section I of t4 Section 151A which was inserted with effect from O1.ll.2O2O.lt refers to faceless assessment of income escaping assessment which would be relevant for better understanding of the issue being decided in the present batch of writ petitions, which again for ready reference is being re-produced herein under: 'The Central Couernment mag make a scheme, bg nottfication in the Offtcial Gazette, -fo, the purposes o./ assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147 or issuance of notice under section 148 [or conducting of enquiries or issuance of shou.t-cause notbe or passing of order und.er section 148A1 or sanction for issue of such notice under section l5l, so as to import greater effrciencg, transparencg and accountabilitA bV (a) eliminating the interfacc betueen the income-tax authoitg ond the assessee or anu other person to the extent technolog ically f e os ib Ic ; (b) optimising utilisation of the resources througlt economi.es of scale and functio nai s peci ol i s o tio n ; (c) introducing a team-based .t-s-sessment, reassessmen| re- conq)utatlon or issuoncr: or sanctr)n of notice uitlt dgnamic jurisdictinn\". 22. Similarly, the Central Board of Direct Taxcs had also arnended Section 13O of the Income Tax Act so far as conferring jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities in thc light of the faceless assessment procedure being adopted. The amended Section l3O and sub-Section I which is relevant for the present issue under consideration again for ready reference is being reproduced herein under: \"The Central Gouernment mag make. tt scheme, bg notifrcation in the Offrcial Gozette, for thc purpose of (a) exercke of all or cury of thc ltoucrs antl perfornrance of all or ong of the functiotTs conferred on, or, as the ca_ e nay be, assigned to incorne te^ authoritres by or undcr lhis Act as rekrred to in secfi
Other Referred Cases
Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal
Laws Referred To
Income-tax Act
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026