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...
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would violate the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates faceless assessment. The Court relied on recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., where it was established that the faceless assessment regime u/s 151A excludes the JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The Court clarified 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 is assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 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 held that when an authority acts contrary to law, the act is required to be quashed as invalid, and the assessee need not establish prejudice, as the unlawful act itself causes prejudice. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law, and when the Income Tax Authority proposes action without following due process, it results in prejudice to the assessee. The Court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would violate the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates faceless assessment. The Court relied on recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., where it was established that the faceless assessment regime u/s 151A excludes the JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The Court clarified 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 is assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 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 held that when an authority acts contrary to law, the act is required to be quashed as invalid, and the assessee need not establish prejudice, as the unlawful act itself causes prejudice. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law, and when the Income Tax Authority proposes action without following due process, it results in prejudice to the assessee. The Court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
