Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Validity of faceless assessment challenged due to notice u/s 148 issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), violating Section 151A. Bombay High Court, relying on Hexaware Technology Ltd., held notices by JAO after Finance Act 2021 are invalid. Considering JAO's lack of authority and non-compliance with Section 151A and related scheme, the impugned notice, reassessment order, consequential demands, and penalties were quashed by allowing the writ petition, consistent with Vikram Developers.
Validity of faceless assessment challenged due to notice u/s 148 issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), violating Section 151A. Bombay High Court, relying on Hexaware Technology Ltd., held notices by JAO after Finance Act 2021 are invalid. Considering JAO's lack of authority and non-compliance with Section 151A and related scheme, the impugned notice, reassessment order, consequential demands, and penalties were quashed by allowing the writ petition, consistent with Vikram Developers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.