Satyanarayn Pandurang Kasatversuspr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nasik Andothers v. Ghugeand

(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 WRIT PETITION NO. 5399 OF 2023 SATYANARAYN PANDURANG KASATVERSUSPR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NASIK ANDOTHERS …. Mr Ram Deepak Heda, Advocate for Petitioner Mr Alok Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 30th July, 2024 PER COURT: 1.In this Writ Petition, the impugned notice underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is dated 26/07/2022, forthe assessment year 2013-2014. Notice by the Department isissued beyond six years. 2.We have heard the learned Advocates for therespective sides. Several issues have been raised in this Petition,inter alia, that the impugned notice could not have been issued bythe Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and which could have (2) 5399.23wp been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 151(A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).The issue of the delayed issuance of the notice is also covered bythe Judgment delivered by this Court at the Principal Seat on15/01/2024 in Writ Petition No.1945/2023 (The New IndiaAssurance Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, IncomeTax and others). 3.The learned Advocates for the respective sides submitthat the judgment dated 03/05/2024, delivered at the PrincipalSeat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs.the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others), settlesthis issue. The notice could not have been issued, save and exceptby the Faceless Assessing Officer. If it is not issued by the FAO,this Court has ruled in Hexaware Technologies (supra), that suchnotice is unsustainable and, accordingly, the notice was quashedand set aside. 4.It is, thus, obvious that the ground that the notice isnot in accordance with the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the (3) Income Tax Act, 1961, is covered by the view taken in Hexaware.Technologies (supra) 5.In view of the above and considering the conclusions drawn in Hexaware Technologies (supra), the notice issued u/s148 would be unsustainable. The same is, therefore, quashed andset aside. Any further demand notice or penalty notice infurtherance thereof, would also not survive and stands set aside, ifany. 6.With the above directions, this Writ Petition isdisposed off. Needless to state, all the contentions of both thesides, which are available to the parties in a proceeding, whichcan be initiated by the FAO under the scheme framed u/s 151(A)of the Income Tax Act, are left open, save and except, those whichare covered by the Hexaware Technologies (supra). (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk