JAO cannot issue Section 148 notice for faceless assessment - only FAO has jurisdiction under Section 151A

The Bombay HC held that a notice issued under Section 148 for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment was invalid when issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as required under Section 151A. The Court ruled there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO for issuing Section 148 notices, following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 2022 scheme, it excludes the other officer's authority. The writ petition was allowed due to lack of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Compliance with Section 151A for issuance of notice under Section 148. Validity of notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

Issue 1: Challenge to Notice under Section 148:
The Writ Petition was filed to challenge a notice dated 29 March, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Petitioner contended that the notice, along with prior notices under Section 148A (b) and Section 148A (d), were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the required Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as per Section 151A of the Act.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 151A:
The Central Government introduced a faceless mechanism through a Notification dated 29 March 2022, requiring compliance with Section 151A for notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Division Bench in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors. interpreted Section 151A, emphasizing that only the FAO, not the JAO, can issue notices under Section 148 in a faceless manner as mandated by the Scheme framed by CBDT.

Issue 3: Validity of Notice Issued by JAO:
The Court found that the Revenue did not comply with the Scheme under Section 151A, rendering the notice invalid. Citing precedents like Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Kairos Properties Pvt. Ltd., the Court held that the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the impugned notices issued by the JAO.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the Writ Petition based on non-compliance with Section 151A, setting aside the impugned notices. The judgment clarified that the decision was solely on the grounds of non-compliance and did not address other issues raised in the petition. The ruling emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory procedures and the jurisdictional requirements set forth in the Act.

---