Sachin Jain vs Income Tax OFFICER,ITO-5 (4) BARABANKI-1 and 5 Others

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 227 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Sachin Jain

¶4

Respondent :- Income Tax Officer,Ito-5 (4) Barabanki-1 And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Gangwar,Ashmita Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Kushagra Dikshit,A.S.G.I.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate along with Shri Rajat Gangwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Neerav Chitravanshi and Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and Shri Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the Union of India.

¶8

Connect and list this case along with Writ Tax No. 374 of 2024 wherein an order dated 13.01.2025 has been passed in the following terms:-

¶9

"1. Heard Shri Sameer Gupta holding brief of Shri Siddharth Nandwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2, 3 and 4.

¶10

2. This writ petition involves the same issue as has been raised in Writ Tax No. 335 of 2024 and is pending consideration.

¶11

3. Connect and list with Writ Tax No. 335 of 2024 wherein on Friday i.e. 10.01.2025 we had passed the following order:-

¶12

"1. Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anshuman Singh and Ms. Geetika Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Neerav Chitravanshi along with Mr. Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶13

2. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the notices and orders issued/passed under Sections 148 and 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the notices and orders have been issued/passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Authority although faceless assessment being attracted in such proceedings, the notices/orders under the aforesaid provisions could only have to be passed under the faceless scheme under Section 151A of the Act, 1961.

¶14

3. After hearing the parties' counsel, what comes out is that the petitioner's counsel relies upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court which is in the petitioner's favour. It addition to it, there are other judgments and orders passed by other High Courts such as (1) Kairos Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others; 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2571 (2) Jatinder Singh Bhangu and another vs. Union of India and others; 2024 SCC OnLIne P&H 9337 (3) Kankanala Rauindra Reddy vs. I.T.O. and others; (2023) 22 ITR - OL 728 (Telangana) wherein as per petitioner's counsel it has been held that the jurisdiction to issue notice and pass orders under the aforesaid provisions lies with the Assessing Authority who is allocated the case as per automated allocation system under the faceless mechanism referable to Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act, 1961.

¶15

4. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue relies upon contrary judgments, as claimed by him, rendered by the Madras High Court, Delhi High Court and Calcutta High Court in Mark Studio India Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer and another [judgment dated 20.12.2024 in W.P. Nos. 25223 & 25227 of 2024 and W.M.P. Nos. 27545, 27547, 27549 & 27550 of 2024], [W.P. (C) No. 1968 of 2023; R.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi and other connected matters (judgment dated 28.10.2024)] and [judgment dated 16.08.2024 rendered in WPA No. 1458 of 2024 (Dhiraj Lakhotia vs. Union of India and Anr.) wherein it has been said that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer also has the jurisdiction to issue notices under aforesaid provision and pass orders in respect thereof.

¶16

5. Mr. Prashant Chandra disputes the applicability of the Madras High Court's judgment on the ground that the proceedings in the said case were initiated by faceless system wherein a direction was issued to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue the notice under the aforesaid provision.

¶17

6. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. The legal position appears to be fluid, especially as, against the Bombay High Court judgment referred hereinabove which is being relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, a Special Leave Petition has been filed wherein notices have been issued but no interim order has been passed staying the said judgment, similarly, against the decision of the Delhi High Court an SLP (Diary No. 60848 of 2024) has been filed as informed by the counsel for the Revenue by the aggrieved assess but there is no order staying the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

¶18

7. In view of this, we are of the opinion that legal issues raised in the writ petition require consideration. We accordingly provide that no final order shall be passed in the proceeding impugned herein, but, this is subject to any order being passed in the SLPs referred hereinabove by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

¶19

8. Let pleadings, if any, be exchanged between the parties.

¶20

9. List after eight weeks."

¶21

4. Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties.

¶22

5. In the meantime, the benefit of the order dated 10.01.2025 passed in the aforesaid writ tax shall be available in this case also on the same terms."

¶23

The benefit of this order shall be available to the petitioner in this case along the same terms.

¶24

Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Lokesh Kumar

¶26

[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]

¶27

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin Jain v. Income Tax OFFICER,ITO-5 (4) BARABANKI-1 and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Jain v. Income Tax OFFICER,ITO-5 (4) BARABANKI-1 and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mata Badal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Barabanki and 2 Others

Smt. Seema Sachan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Women and Child Development, Lucknow and Others

Punjab National Bank Thru. Constituted Attorney Mr. Divyendu Gaurav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. and 14 Others

Parul Srivastava vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Revenue Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Manju @ Manju Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayat Raj Lko. and 6 Others

Shivram Singh vs U.P. Information Commission Thru. Registrar and 4 Others