Kanakanala Ravindra Reddy and Ors v .UOI ( 2023) 295 Taxman 652 / 334 CTR 646 ( Telagana )(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless Jurisdiction of income -tax authorities – e- Assessment Scheme, 2022- It is mandatory for Revenue to conduct /initiate proceedings to reassessment in a faceless manner – Concurrent jurisdiction -Reassessment notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer – CBDT notification – Finance Act , 2021 -Procedure adopted by the Revenue is contravention of the statute – When the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically- Interpretation of taxing statute – If statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner . [ S.119, 124, 130(1), 130(2), 144B, 147, 148, 148A (d), 151A, e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022- , 2(1)b),3, Art ,142, 226 ]

On writ petition challenging the notice under section 148 and the order passed under section. 148A (d) of the Act , the petitioners have contended that subsequent to the amendment incorporated in the Income -Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 29.03.2022 all the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under Section 148A and 148 of the Act were all mandatorily to be proceeded in a faceless manner. Else, the same would amount to being violative of the Income -Tax Act or in contravention to the procedure prescribed under law which is in force. When the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) have issued the notification dated 29.03.2022, whereby a scheme called e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022 which came into force with effect from 29.03.2022 itself; the assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148A shall be done through the automated allocation. Further the notices, to be issued, have to be in a faceless manner as is provided under Section 144B of the Act. It was also contended that the re-opening proceedings first of all could not have been initiated after a gap of three (3) years. Secondly, re- opening of the proceedings can only be permitted if the income chargeable to tax escaping assessment is more than fifty Rs.50,00,000/-. Court held that  when the AO decided to go in for re-assessment of the return submitted by the assessee and notice for the same under Section 148A of the Act was issued, it was incumbent upon the AO to have adhered to the amended provision of the Act and do the re-assessment in a faceless manner, rather than being assessed by the jurisdictional officer as has been provided under Section 144B of the Act and in accordance with the scheme enacted by the Central Government under Section 151A of the Act. Subsequent to the amendment incorporated in the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 29.03.2022 all the proceedings initiated by the authorities concerned under Section 148A and 148 of the Act were all mandatorily to be proceeded in a faceless manner. Else, the same is violative of the Income Tax Act and in contravention to the procedure prescribed under law which is in force. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short ‘CBIT’), has issued the notification dated 29.03.2022, whereby a scheme called e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022 which came into force with effect from 29.03.2022 itself; the assessment, re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 and the issuance of notice under Section 148A shall be done through the automated allocation. Further the notices, to be issued, have to be in a faceless manner as is provided under Section 144B of the Act. Accordingly  the  notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal hence  set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent- Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason  quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.  Referred following cases laws wherein the Court held that , it is well settled solitary principle that if statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.    Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahaveer and others 1999 8 SCC 266   Cherrukurimani v. Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2015 13 SCC 722, Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai v. Abhilash Lal and others  2020 13 SCC 234, Opto Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank and others 2021 6 SCC 707, Union of India v.. Mahesh Sing (CAP.No.4807 of 2022)  , Tata Chemicals Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (preventive) Jam Nager  2015 11 SCC 628.  (WP Nos .25903 of 2023 and Ors dt .14 -9 -2023   ( AY. 2016 -17)