Reassessment notice quashed as it was issued by the Assessing Officer instead of NFAC.

By | February 4, 2025
(Last Updated On: February 4, 2025)

Reassessment notice quashed as it was issued by the Assessing Officer instead of NFAC.

Summary in Key Points:

  • Issue: Was the reopening notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer valid, or did the power to issue such notices lie exclusively with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)?
  • Facts: For AY 2017-18, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148A(b), passed a consequent order under Section 148A(d), and then issued a reopening notice. The assessee challenged these actions, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated March 29, 2022, which specifically stated that the NFAC had exclusive power to issue notices under Section 148. The assessee also pointed to High Court decisions in similar cases holding that the faceless assessment scheme applies from the show cause notice stage under Section 148, and that allowing Jurisdictional Assessing Officers to issue such notices would defeat the scheme’s purpose.
  • Decision: The court held that the impugned notices and order should be quashed.

Important Note: This decision reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC in issuing reopening notices under Section 148, as clarified by the CBDT circular/notification. It follows the precedent set by High Courts in similar cases, emphasizing that the faceless assessment scheme applies from the initial stages of reopening proceedings. This ensures consistency and upholds the objective of the faceless assessment regime.

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Gurjinder Singh
v.
Union of India
Arun Palli and Mrs. Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.
CWP 97of 2025 (O & M)
JANUARY  9, 2025
Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Adv. and Gurdeep Singh, Adv. for the Petitioner. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel and Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
Sudeepti Sharma, J. – Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notices dated 27.12.2023 issued under Section 148 A (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961″); 11.01.2024 issued under Section 148 A (b) of Act, 1961; order dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A (d) of Act, 1961 and notice dated 27.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of Act, 1961 for AY 20172018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh v. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case.
5. The petitioner has challenged the notices/order dated 27.12.2023, 11.01.2024, 27.02.2024 and 27.02.2024 for AY 2017-18, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NF AC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961.
6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024
8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.