Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
This case deals with the validity of a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in light of the provisions of Section 151A, which introduced the regime of faceless assessment. The court held that, as per recent decisions, it is not permissible for the JAO to issue a notice u/s 148, as it would amount to a breach of Section 151A. The court emphasized that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing notices u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. The court further stated that when an authority acts contrary to law, the said act is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid, and the assessee is not required to establish prejudice. An act done contrary to the statute itself causes prejudice to the assessee, as all assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law and by following the prescribed procedure.
This case deals with the validity of a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) in light of the provisions of Section 151A, which introduced the regime of faceless assessment. The court held that, as per recent decisions, it is not permissible for the JAO to issue a notice u/s 148, as it would amount to a breach of Section 151A. The court emphasized that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing notices u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. The court further stated that when an authority acts contrary to law, the said act is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid, and the assessee is not required to establish prejudice. An act done contrary to the statute itself causes prejudice to the assessee, as all assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law and by following the prescribed procedure.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
