Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of a re-assessment notice issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the designated Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required by Notification No 18/2022. The Tribunal held that the Scheme formulated by the CBDT applies to both assessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It clarified that only the FAO, not the JAO, can issue notices u/s 148. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 144B applies to assessment or reassessment, not to the issuance of notices. Citing a case, the Tribunal deemed notices issued by JAOs invalid u/s 151A of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the assessment based on JAO's notice as void ab initio, ruling in favor of the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of a re-assessment notice issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the designated Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required by Notification No 18/2022. The Tribunal held that the Scheme formulated by the CBDT applies to both assessment and issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It clarified that only the FAO, not the JAO, can issue notices u/s 148. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 144B applies to assessment or reassessment, not to the issuance of notices. Citing a case, the Tribunal deemed notices issued by JAOs invalid u/s 151A of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the assessment based on JAO's notice as void ab initio, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
