Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Surender Kumar Wadhwa, filed a writ petition challenging the notice dated 26.03.2024 issued under Section 148A(b), the approval dated 09.04.2024 under Section 151, the order dated 09.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d), and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Two principal grounds were urged: first, that only the Faceless Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; and second, that the order under Section 148A(d) was passed beyond the period of limitation.

Issues Involved

Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked competence to initiate reassessment in view of the faceless assessment scheme, whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) was barred by limitation, and whether reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed on these grounds.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that initiation of reassessment by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction as only the Faceless Assessing Officer could act. It was further argued that the order dated 09.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) was beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149, and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue relied on binding precedents of the Delhi High Court to submit that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the Faceless Assessing Officer have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. On limitation, it was argued that the period granted to the assessee to respond to the notice under Section 148A(b) is required to be excluded under the fifth proviso to Section 149, and if the remaining limitation period is less than seven days, it stands extended by seven days under the sixth proviso.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court recorded the fair concession of the petitioner’s senior counsel that both issues raised were covered against the petitioner. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court relied on its decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, holding that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers and Faceless Assessing Officers have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. On the issue of limitation, the Court relied on its earlier judgment in Raminder Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, including the subsequent review order, which clarified the manner of computation of limitation by excluding the period available to respond to a Section 148A(b) notice and extending limitation by seven days where required under the sixth proviso to Section 149. Applying these principles, the Court held that the impugned order dated 09.04.2024 was within limitation. The Court also noted that although an SLP against Raminder Singh was pending before the Supreme Court, there was no stay operating.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that dismissal of SLPs or pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court without a stay does not dilute the binding nature of Delhi High Court precedents within its territorial jurisdiction. Authorities and litigants are bound to follow such decisions unless stayed or set aside.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed. The reassessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner were upheld as valid in law. All pending applications, including the impleadment application, were disposed of accordingly, with liberty to pursue remedies available in law.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1769681231_SURENDERKUMARWADHWAVsPRINCIPALCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX18ANR..pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.