Pankaj Kumar Agrawal S/o Ayodhya Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years, Proprietor Of M/s v. 1 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:37550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 83 of 2025 Pankaj Kumar Agrawal S/o Ayodhya Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years, Proprietor Of M/s. Savitri Rice Mill Proprietorship, R/o Ward No.-10, Sagar State, Saraipali, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, New Delhi, 110001 2 - Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110003 3 - Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Raipur-1, Office of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, RAI02, RAI03, RAI04, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 4 - Income Tax Officer Ward Mahasamund, Office Of Income Tax SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 Officer Ward Mahasamund, Income Tax Office, Trimurti Colony, Raipur Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 493445 5 - Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Office Of The Principal Commissioner of Income Central Revenue Building, RAI02, RAI03, RAI04, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate Respondent(s) Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 31/07/2025 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief(s) : 10.1 Quashing/setting aside Annexure “P1A” i.e. reassessment
Decision
order dated 21.3.2025 and consequential demand notice dated 21.03.2025, 10.2 Quashing/setting aside Annexure “P/1B” i.e. notice issued under Section 148 of the Act triggering/initiating reassessment proceeding. 10.3 Quashing/setting aside Annexure “P/1C” i.e. approval issued under Section 151 of the Act. 10.4 Grant any other relief(s) and/or pass any such 3 order(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Necessary facts of the case are that approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), was granted by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.03.2024 for reassessment in respect of the Assessment Year 2020–21, concerning income escaping assessment. Thereafter, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Raipur, also granted sanction on 28.03.2024, and a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO, Mahasamund. On 28.06.2024, an intimation was issued to the assessee/petitioner informing him that the assessment proceedings would be conducted in a faceless manner. Under Section 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Act, a notice dated 29.06.2024 was issued seeking clarification in this regard. Further notices dated 29.08.2024, 13.01.2025, 03.02.2025, and 06.02.2025 were issued under Section 142(1) of the Act, requiring the assessee/petitioner to furnish accounts, documents and/or information. A show cause notice dated 17.02.2025 was issued proposing variations to be made in the income of the assessee under Sections 36(1)(iii), 68, 69, 69-C, and 40(a)(3) of the Act. Thereafter, a 4 Reassessment Order dated 21.3.2025 was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act, resulting in certain additions to the income declared by the assessee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued the notice under Section 148 of the Act, notwithstanding the promulgation of a scheme on 29.03.2022 under Section 151A of the Act, which provides that notices under Section 148 must be issued in a faceless manner. Since the initial notice was not issued in a faceless manner, the entire subsequent proceedings founded on such notice and culminating in the final assessment order dated 21.03.2025, have no legal basis. Pursuant to the promulgation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the notice under Section 148 of the Act ought to have been issued in a faceless manner. Therefore, all consequential assessment orders are bad in law. For the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Venkataramana Reddy Patloola V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (WP No.13353/2024) on 24.7.2024. He also places reliance on the order dated 29.8.2024 passed in WP No.23573/2024, by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while 5 dismissing SLP(Civil) Diary No.33956/2025 vide order dated 16.7.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that this petition be allowed. 4. Replying the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the issue as to whether a notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, or is required to be issued by a Faceless Assessment Officer, or whether both the authorities have concurrent jurisdiction, with the final order being passed by the Faceless Unit, is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Others v. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills (SLP No. 27736/2023). He would further submit that although the issue regarding the issuance of the notice is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question as to whether the Faceless Assessment Officer lacks jurisdiction to pass an order has been addressed by this Court in W.P. No. 157/2024 (Arihant Jewellers Private Limited v. Union of India and others, decided on 24.3.2025), wherein, while dismissing the aforesaid petition liberty was granted to the assessee to avail the alternative statutory remedy available and raise all such grounds before the Appellate Authority. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner therein in WA No. 6 291/2025, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 6.5.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that after the passing of the order dated 16.7.2025 by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Diary No. 33956/2025, several SLPs have been filed and are pending consideration before the Supreme Court. On instructions from the Revenue, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the matter was mentioned before the Supreme Court and a liberty has been granted in favour of the Revenue to file a Review Petition, as several SLPs on a similar issue are already pending. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents filed along with the petition. 6. Indisputably, the issue relates to the question of jurisdiction, particularly when the notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. After the introduction of the Scheme vide Notification dated 29.3.2022, in terms of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Jurisdictional Officer has no longer any authority to issue such a notice. Consequently, the notice is prima facie illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction, and any final order passed pursuant to such notice has lost its significance. However, the order passed by the Faceless Unit in the instant case is an 7 appealable order under Section 246A of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. However, liberty is granted in favour of the petitioner to raise all such grounds available to him in the appeal, including the ground that the issue of jurisdiction is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner/assessee to file an appeal before the competent authority in accordance with law, along with stay application. On such appeal being filed, the said authority shall consider and decide the stay application at the earliest, particularly taking into account the jurisdictional issue pending before the Supreme Court. 9. Till the stay application is decided by the said authority, no coercive steps shall be taken in pursuance of the order dated 21.3.2025 passed by the Faceless Unit. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna