Sri Gopal Store, Sambalpur V. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit of National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

RVWPET/269/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Sri Gopal Store, Sambalpur, the applicant, who sought a review of a judgment concerning an assessment order and demand notices issued for the assessment year 2021-22. The original judgment had quashed the assessment order on grounds that it was manually made under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contrary to the faceless assessment scheme notified on 29th March, 2022. The applicant's review was based on the inability to produce a crucial notification during the initial hearing, which specified the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for faceless assessment. The court, upon reviewing the circumstances and the submitted notification, decided to recall the previous judgment and restore the writ petition for further examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798154 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDHARTHA RAY; K K SAHOO; D K SAMAL
• Keywords: Faceless assessment; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notification; Review Application
• Section: 143(3); 120(2); 120(1); 151(a); 120(5); 144-B(1); 144-B(2)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.269 of 2024 M/s. Sri Gopal Store, Sambalpur …. Applicant Represented By Adv. – Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Sr. Advocate Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate Mr. D.K. Samal, Advocate -versus- Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit of National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi and another …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Sr. Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Order No. ORDER 04.02.2025 04. 1. Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of review applicant, who was writ petitioner. He submits, his client has applied for review of our judgment dated 22nd October, 2024. The review has been necessitated because inspite of due diligence his client could not // 2 // Page 2 of 4 lay hands on and produce notification dated 31st March, 2021, disclosed as annexure-2 in the application. He draws attention to it to submit, inter alia, entry no.1684 conferred jurisdiction to Principal Commissioner of Income tax as an authority for Regional Faceless Assessment Centre (ReFAC). The notification was issued in exercise of power under sub-sections (1), (2) and (5) in section 120, Income Tax Act, 1961. Referring to paragraph 7 of the judgment he submits, this is the specification made by the authority. He submits, there be review. 2. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and on query made submits, the notification stands made. 3. In context of the review application we reproduce below paragraphs 1 and 7 from our judgment dated 22nd October, 2024. “1. Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned are assessment order dated 31st July, 2024 pertaining to assessment year, 2021-22 and demand notices issued pursuant thereto. They are liable to be quashed because they were made manually under provisions in section 143(3) of Income // 3 // Page 3 of 4 Tax Act, 1961 though the assessment was to be done in a faceless manner as per scheme notified on 29th March, 2022. He draws attention to the notification to submit, the assessment ought to have been made as provided in section 151-A. He seeks interference. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. Section 144-B appears to be a complete code providing for faceless assessment. We have already noted before that impugned assessment order was made under section 143(3) read with section 260. Sub-section(1) in section 144-B(1), without the clauses thereunder is reproduced below. “144-B. Faceless assessment.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provisions of this Act, the assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or under section 144, in the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:- ... ... ... ...” (emphasis supplied) Sub-section(2) in section 144-B is also reproduced below. “(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 // 4 // Page 4 of 4 incomes, or cases or class of cases, as may be specified by the Board.” No specification by the Board has been shown to us.” The notification, applicant says, could not be produced at the time of hearing inspite of exercise of diligence. We accept the submission, to allow the review. Judgment dated 22nd October, 2024 is recalled and the writ petition restored for hearing. 4. The review is allowed and disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 04-Feb-2025 18:53:55 Signature Not Verified "