TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Initiation of reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 post Faceless Scheme set aside on jurisdictional grounds</h1> The note addresses whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer retained authority to initiate proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 after ... Initiation of proceedings u/s 148(A) and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) - Faceless Assessment - Initiation of proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 - Jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings u/s 148A and 148 after the Faceless Scheme came into force HELD THAT:- The legal issue as regards the lack of jurisdiction on the part of JAO to initiate the proceedings post implementation of the Faceless Scheme is no longer res integra as it has been held in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [2023 (9) TMI 951 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] the impugned 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, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Sections 147 and 148 would also get quashed The writ petitions are allowed on the jurisdictional ground: notices and proceedings initiated under Sections 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the Faceless Scheme came into force are set aside and consequential orders quashed, subject to the liberty reserved to the Revenue to pursue further action as indicated by this Court. Issues: Whether notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and consequent assessment orders under Section 147 are vitiated for not being issued and proceeded with in a faceless manner in contravention of amendments effected by Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021 and related notifications, thereby constituting a jurisdictional/procedural defect.Analysis: The Court examined whether the issuance of notices under Sections 148A and 148 and the initiation of proceedings by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer complied with the faceless procedure mandated by the amended statutory scheme (including Section 151A and Notification No.18/2022) and whether non-compliance amounts to a jurisdictional or procedural illegality. The Court relied on this High Court's earlier decision in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy and consistent decisions of several other High Courts which held that initiation of proceedings outside the faceless mechanism contravenes the amended law. The Court considered the need to protect both the interest of the Revenue and the assessee, noted that the Supreme Court has SLPs pending on these issues, and adopted the approach of disposing covered writ petitions in terms of the earlier decision while preserving the Revenue's reserved right to proceed in accordance with law.Conclusion: The writ petitions are allowed on the jurisdictional ground. The impugned notices under Sections 148A and 148 and consequential orders under Section 147 are set aside/quashed for non-compliance with the faceless procedure and related statutory requirements; the assessee succeeds on the decided issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
