Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Section 148 Notices After 29.03.2022 Must Be Issued Only by Faceless Assessing Officers, Else Invalid</h1> <h3>Syed Bathrudeen Mohideen Awliya Versus Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-19 (6), Chennai</h3> Syed Bathrudeen Mohideen Awliya Versus Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-19 (6), Chennai - TMI 1. ISSUES:1.1 Whether, after issuance of the Central Government/CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022 under section 151A of the Act, notices under section 148 must be issued by a 'faceless assessing officer' through 'automated allocation' and in a 'faceless manner', or whether a 'jurisdictional assessing officer' may issue such notices.1.2 Whether an assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 that rests on a section 148 notice issued by a jurisdictional assessing officer after the notification of 29.03.2022 is invalid and 'void ab initio'.1.3 Whether a decision following High Court precedent that the section 148 notice issued by a jurisdictional assessing officer is invalid remains operative where there is an extant appeal by Revenue to the Apex Court against that High Court precedent.2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS:2.1 On issue 1.1: The court holds that, pursuant to section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022, notices under section 148 are to be issued by a 'faceless assessing officer' through 'automated allocation' and in a 'faceless manner', and a notice issued by a 'jurisdictional assessing officer' after that notification is not in conformity with the statutory scheme.2.2 On issue 1.2: The court holds that a section 148 notice issued by a jurisdictional assessing officer post-notification is an 'invalid notice' and that any assessment 'which is resting on any such notice shall also be invalid and void ab initio'; accordingly the assessment order founded on that notice does not survive.2.3 On issue 1.3: The court applies existing High Court precedent adopting the view that the faceless scheme precludes concurrent issuance by the jurisdictional officer, but records that its ruling is 'subject to the decision of' the Apex Court in the pending appeal against that High Court precedent.3. RATIONALE:3.1 Statutory framework applied: Section 151A was read with the e-Assessment Scheme notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 29.03.2022, which prescribes that assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 and 'issuance of notice under section 148' shall be through 'automated allocation' and in a 'faceless manner', and that the scheme is intended to achieve 'eliminating the interface between the income-tax authority and the assessee' and 'optimising utilisation of the resources' by team-based assessment with 'dynamic jurisdiction'.3.2 Precedential reliance and interpretation: The court followed the reasoning of prior High Court decisions which held that the faceless assessment scheme vests authority to issue reassessment notices in the faceless assessing officer and that allowing concurrent jurisdiction to the jurisdictional assessing officer would undermine the scheme; the court treated those High Court decisions as determinative for the legal questions before it.3.3 Consequential legal principle: The court endorsed the principle that where the statutory foundation for reassessment notice issuance (i.e., the faceless, automated allocation mechanism) is not complied with, the notice is 'invalid' and the resulting assessment order is 'void ab initio'-in the court's words, 'once foundation goes the superstructure is bound to collapse.'3.4 Condition on supervening appellate outcome: The court expressly noted that its application of the High Court precedent is 'subject to the decision of' the Apex Court in the pending appeal against those precedents, and left open the parties' rights to seek revival of proceedings if the Apex Court reverses the High Court view.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found