Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9595
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
Pankaj Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Through Ministry Of Finance – Respondent
WPT No. 83 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's assessment was reassessed without following the faceless assessment scheme introduced subsequently, leading to a legal challenge to the notices issued under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Findings of Court:
The notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer is prima facie illegal, and any order passed pursuant has lost significance. Petitioner should appeal to the competent authority and include jurisdictional concerns presently before the Supreme Court.
Issues: Whether notices under Section 148 have to be issued in a faceless manner following the new scheme, and the legality of proceedings based on prior notices.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that following the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme, notices must be issued accordingly, reinforcing that such mandates cannot be overridden by the jurisdictional authority.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with liberty granted to appeal.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Mr. Ajay Kumrani
For the Respondents: N/A
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to reassessment process under provisions of income tax act. (Para 2) |
| 2. jurisdictional implications of improper notice issuance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's view on jurisdiction and authority in reassessment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. disposal and right to appeal upheld. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
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 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 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 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 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
