Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Retrospective deeming of the Assessing Officer for reassessment...
Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedural.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Retrospective deeming of the Assessing Officer for reassessment under Sections 148 and 148A was treated as curing the objection based on the identity of the officer, while Section 151A was held to be only enabling and not itself a source of faceless reassessment jurisdiction. The faceless scheme notified on 29.03.2022 applied prospectively to notices under Section 148, so a notice issued earlier could not be attacked for want of faceless jurisdiction at initiation. The later substitution of Section 144B, expressly covering reassessment, was treated as clarificatory and procedural, and omission of the old sub-section 144B(9) meant procedural lapses did not automatically void the assessment. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected; the additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits were restored for fresh examination.
Retrospective deeming of the Assessing Officer for reassessment under Sections 148 and 148A was treated as curing the objection based on the identity of the officer, while Section 151A was held to be only enabling and not itself a source of faceless reassessment jurisdiction. The faceless scheme notified on 29.03.2022 applied prospectively to notices under Section 148, so a notice issued earlier could not be attacked for want of faceless jurisdiction at initiation. The later substitution of Section 144B, expressly covering reassessment, was treated as clarificatory and procedural, and omission of the old sub-section 144B(9) meant procedural lapses did not automatically void the assessment. The jurisdictional challenge was rejected; the additions for unexplained investment and cash deposits were restored for fresh examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 1982 
