1 2025:CGHC:40470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPT No. 169 of 2024 Ramesh Surjan S/o Lt. Shri Vittal Das Surjan Aged About 60 Years (Prop - R.K. Polymeres), R/o Surjan Niwas, Ramadhin Marg, P.S., Tah And Distt, Rajnandgaon, C.G. P I N 491441 ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G. 4. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax- 1(1) Income Tax Office, 32/32 Bunglows, Bhilai, C.G. 5. The National Faceless Assessmen Centre Through The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate. For Res No.2 to 4/ Income Tax : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.13 11:12:45 +0530 2 "(i) To call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal. (ii) To declare illegal and quash the impugned order passed under clause (d) of Section 148 A of the Act (Annexure-P/1) and all the proceedings flowing through said notice. (iii) To declare illegal and quash impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act [Annexure-P/2] and all proceedings flowing through said notice. (iv) To stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice [Annexure-P/2] and direct respondent No.5 not to pass final orders till disposal of present petition. (v) To pass such other and/or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue would submit that during the pendency of this petition a final assessment order has been passed on 10.03.2025 by the Faceless Assessment Officer and the said order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the "Act 1961"). He submits that the petitioner may avail such remedy and raise all grounds available to him in the said appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would not dispute the fact that final assessment order has been passed and he has liberty to avail the remedy of appeal. However, he would submit that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Act 1961 is bad in law as it has been issued in violation of provision contained in Section 151A of the Act 1961 read with CBDT's Notification dated 29.03.2022. He also submits that the similar issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors Vs. 3 Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills [SLP No.27736/2023]. He submits that the subject matter concerning issuance of notice is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Faceless Assessment Officer has no jurisdiction to pass an order particularly when the said notice is prima facie illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the issue involved in the case, particularly, considering that the order which has been passed by the Faceless Assessment Officer is appealable under the Act of 1961 and also considering that issue involved in the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme, I am not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. However, the petitioner may raise all such grounds available to him in the appeal including the ground that when the notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessment Officer then Faceless Assessment Officer is not competent to pass the subsequent order. It is also observed that if any appeal is filed by the petitioner, the concerned Authority is expected to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay