Iconic Fashion Retailing Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Ncr Building,Statute Circle, Jaipur

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14312/2022 Iconic Fashion Retailing Private Limited, 601, 6Th Floor, GangaHeights, Sb-154, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through ItsAuthorised Signatory Pramila Khandelwal W/o Shri K C Gupta,Aged About 66 Years, R/o Sb 114, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Ncr Building,Statute Circle, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Jaipur, NcrBuilding, Statute Circle, JaipurBuilding, Statute Circle, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak Advocate with Mr. Kannishk Singhal Advocate.For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 04/09/2025 Order 1.Mr. Gunjan Pathak, counsel for petitioner submits that issueinvolved in this petition is squarely covered by order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ PetitionNo.14638/2022 (Rajesh Sharma Versus Income Tax Officer & Anr.)and other connected matters, passed on 21[st] August 2025. 2.Order dated 21[st] August 2025 reads as under: “1.This bunch of writ petitions was tagged together solely onaccount of one common issue involved with regard to the validityof notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity, 'the Act'), and the effect of TOLA and Finance Act,2021, bringing the new faceless regime.account of one common issue involved with regard to the validityof notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity, 'the Act'), and the effect of TOLA and Finance Act,2021, bringing the new faceless regime. 2.In the present bunch of the petitions, counsels for thepetitioners have submitted that in terms of the judgment passedby the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeevpetitioners have submitted that in terms of the judgment passedby the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (SC), 2024 INSC, 754, in some of the cases, noticesissued to them under Section 148 of the Act, have become timebarred and the proceedings required to be dropped. In some of theother cases, the proceedings would continue and the authoritiescan proceed, while in some other cases, the valuation being lessthan Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lakhs), the proceedings required tobe dropped as per the stand taken by the revenue before theSupreme Court. There is one other argument which is advancedbefore this Court with respect to the notices having been issuedduring the period by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). 3.Learned counsels have submitted that such notices would bebad in law, in view of the new faceless regime having come intoforce. However, in the case of M/s Patran Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Union of India & Ors., decided on 20.12.2024, one of us (Mr.Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.) has taken this view while sitting inPunjab and Haryana High Court which reads as under: 3.Learned counsels have submitted that such notices would bebad in law, in view of the new faceless regime having come intoforce. However, in the case of M/s Patran Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Union of India & Ors., decided on 20.12.2024, one of us (Mr.Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.) has taken this view while sitting inPunjab and Haryana High Court which reads as under: “18. The Supreme Court while examining the interplay ofAshish Aggarwal with TOLA in Rajeev Bansal's case(supra) had noticed one instance in para 113. It usedthe words 'to assume jurisdiction to issue notices underSection 148 with respect to the relevant assessmentyears of 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017and 2017-2018'. It had to be within the time prescribedunder Section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLAand also obtain the previous approval of the authorityunder Section 151 of the Act. It observed that the noticeissued without complying with the preconditions isinvalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessingofficer. Thus, the new scheme has been allowed tooperate so far as the procedure part is concerned.However, the Apex Court has no occasion to examine thejurisdiction of the assessing officer with respect toSection 124 of the Act as after the new scheme havingbeen introduced on 29.03.2022, the jurisdiction to makeassessment and reassessment has been transferred tothe faceless authority. We will have to examine as towhether a notice which was originally issued by theJurisdictional Assessing Officer in terms of the old regimeand which has been deemed to be issued under Section148B of the Act can be allowed to be processed by thesame officer or not. 19. The entire scheme of the Act specifically requires thesame assessing officer, who issues notices to conduct anenquiry and considered their reply in terms of Section148A. Thereafter, the same assessing officer is requiredto pass an order under the new scheme after givingnotice under Section 148 of the old Act. In ourconsidered opinion, if we examine the provisions ofpresent situation, which has arisen on account oftreating the notices issued under Section 148 of the Actas notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the naturalcorollary would be that such replies which may bereceived to the notice issued under Section 148A(b) ofthe Act, would be examined by the same assessingofficer, who had originally issued the notices under theold regime. His jurisdiction cannot be said to have beentaken away for examining the reply to notice underSection 148A(b) of the Act. Therefore, as a result thesame assessing officer i.e. JAO would be also entitled totake a decision on such reply and pass orders of assessment or reassessment in terms of the newprovisions of Section 148 of the Act. 20. In Rajeev Bansal's case (supra), the Apex Courttook into consideration the said aspect and held that therevenue shall after receiving the response of theassessee, consider the reply in terms of Section 148A(c)of the Act and take a decision under Section 148A(d) ofthe Act. The scheme of the new provisions also reflectthat it is the assessing officer, who has issued notices,would take a decision under Section 148A(d) of the Actas it is he who would be having the available material toexamine the reply of the assessee. He would thereafterissue notice under Section 148 of the Act treating it to bea fit case for reassessment, if so required or may dropthe proceedings. Once he has issued notice underSection 148 of the Act, the proceedings can betransferred for issuing the reassessment order throughfaceless regime. If the contention of the respondents isaccepted, the entire process has to be conducted underthe faceless regime, not by the jurisdictional assessingofficer the result would be that all the notices issued andtreated by the Supreme Court as issued under Section148A(b) of the Act would become otiose and redundantfor all the purposes. 21. As per Section 148 of the Act amended with effectfrom 01.04.2021, the assessing officer has to serve ontheassesseeanoticebeforemakingassessment/reassessment or recomputation on the basisof information with the assessing officer which suggeststhat the income chargeable to tax has escapedassessment. Therefore, the assessing officer has to bethe same who had initiated the proceedings sinceoriginally the jurisdictional assessing officer had issuedthe notice which has been deemed to be a notice underSection 148A(b) of the Act by the Apex Court. It can besafely assumed that it is the same assessing officer whois required to issue notice under Section 148 of the Actand also to pass order of assessment/ reassessment orrecomputation in terms of Section 147 of the Act. 22. We find that as per Section 144B (7) and (8) of theAct (supra), the Principal Chief Commissioner or thePrincipal Director General, as the case may be, in-chargeof the National Faceless Assessment Centre, may in factsand circumstances as laid down therein or at any stageof assessment transfer the case to the assessing officerhaving jurisdiction over the case. This power, of course,has to be exercised in circumstances laid down therein. 23. Although, we find that the power under Section 144B(7) and (8) has not been exercised by the Principal ChiefCommissioner to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer,however, the circumstances have been considered by theSupreme Court while exercising its power under Article142 of the Constitution of India in Ashish Aggarwal'scase (supra), whereby it has specifically provided thejurisdiction to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer bydeemed fiction of law under the new Faceless Regime.We say so because the initial notice was issued by theJurisdictional Assessing Officer, which has been treatedto be a notice under Section 148A of the Act and Section 148 of the old Act, as notices under Section 148A(a) and(b) of the Act. He would, therefore, be the best person toassess and re-assess the provisions of law are requiredto be otherwise considered strictly. However, in caseswhere there is an allegation of escape of income, onaccount of which notices were issued by theJurisdictional Assessing Officer, must reach to its logicalconclusion by the same officer. We, therefore, hold thatthe Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would continue toproceed and have jurisdiction to decide the notices whichwere originally issued by him. 24. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure which hasbeen laid down under the new regime will of course haveto be followed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 25. We find that no prejudice would be caused if such acourse is adopted by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.The submission of the petitioners is, therefore, found tobe without force. 26. In view of our above reasons and observations, wedo not agree with the view taken by the Telangana HighCourt in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy's case (supra). 27. The contention of Mr. Bansal, learned senior counselfor the petitioners relating to non-application of thejudgment passed in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) isalso found to be wholly misconceived. So far as the casedecided by us in Jasjit Singh's case (supra) is concerned,we find the facts of that case were different. The casedeals with the notices which have been issued by theJurisdictional Assessing Officer after the faceless regimehad come into force with effect from 29.03.2022. 28. The view taken by the Bombay High Court inHexaware Technologies Limited's case (supra) alsodoes not apply to the present bunch of cases. It is madeclear that the petitioners relating to the orders passed bythe Assessing Officer on merits can be raised in appealbefore the appellate authority. If appeals are so filed, thesame shall be decided on merits and the delay shall becondoned on account of the fact that the writ petitionsare pending before this Court.” 28. The view taken by the Bombay High Court inHexaware Technologies Limited's case (supra) alsodoes not apply to the present bunch of cases. It is madeclear that the petitioners relating to the orders passed bythe Assessing Officer on merits can be raised in appealbefore the appellate authority. If appeals are so filed, thesame shall be decided on merits and the delay shall becondoned on account of the fact that the writ petitionsare pending before this Court.” 4.The counsels appearing for the revenue submit that in eachcase facts will have to be examined individually. 5.We accordingly direct the revenue to examine each andevery case relating to the deemed notices issued under Section148 of the Act, in light of the observations made by the SupremeCourt in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) and reach to aconclusion, as to whether the proceedings would fall within thelimitation or have become time barred in terms of sub-para F, G &H of paragraph No.114 (supra). 6.While examining the cases, the example as mentioned bythe Apex Court in its judgment in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra)in paragraph No.112 and observations made in paragraph Nos.110and 111, shall also be taken into consideration. Cases, which fallless than the value of Rs.50,00,000/- would have to be droppedkeeping in view the stand taken by the revenue before the ApexCourt, as observed in paragraph No.53. 7.The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the concernedcompetent Officer of the Department expeditiously, preferably,within a period of two months without any further delay. Thedecision shall be conveyed to the assessee in terms of the facelessregime by the concerned Officer keeping in view the provision ofSection 144-B of the Act. 8.In view of the above, the contentions raised before us arerejected. Further, it has also been brought to notice that in therecent judgments passed in the cases ofAssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikram Kapahi, reported in[2025] 170 taxmann.com 593 (SC), decided on 06.01.2025,Income Tax Officer Vs. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya, reported in[2024] 168 taxmann.com 588 (SC) and Income Tax OfficerVs. Pradeep Himatlal Shah, reported in[2025] 170taxmann.com 472 (SC), decided on 20.12.2024, the Hon’bleSupreme Court has also disposed of the Special Leave Petitions interms of the judgment passed in Rajeev Bansal (supra) with theobservation that the Assessing Officer shall dispose of the petitionsin terms of the law laid down therein. 9.We order accordingly. All the petitions stand disposed of.Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 10.If any of the petitioner/assessee is still aggrieved of theorder passed, remedy in terms of the provision of the Act can beavailed by him. 11.A copy of this order be placed in each connected file. D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.16013/2022, 16144/2022 &16705/2022:- 1.In view of the decision which has been taken in D.B. CivilWrit Petition No.14638/2022 and other connected matters (supra),we hold that in cases where the assessee have gone in the appealagainst the final assessment order, the said appeals would standdecided in view of the observations and findings arrived at hereinabove. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly. 2.A copy of this order be placed in the above three writpetitions.” 3.Mr. Sandeep Pathak, counsel for respondents agrees. 4.Ordered accordingly. 5.Petition disposed. 6.All interim applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-Sourav/12