Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A, which has brought a regime of faceless assessment. As per the decision in Hexaware Technology Ltd., the provisions of Section 151A clearly mandate faceless assessment. There is no concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuance of notice u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Scheme dated 29th March 2022, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. In the present case, the Revenue has not complied with the Scheme notified u/s 151A(2), which governs the conduct of proceedings u/ss 148A and 148. The explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware renders the grievance of the Assessee sustainable, and the manner of initiating proceedings vitiates the proceedings.
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 amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A, which has brought a regime of faceless assessment. As per the decision in Hexaware Technology Ltd., the provisions of Section 151A clearly mandate faceless assessment. There is no concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuance of notice u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Scheme dated 29th March 2022, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. In the present case, the Revenue has not complied with the Scheme notified u/s 151A(2), which governs the conduct of proceedings u/ss 148A and 148. The explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware renders the grievance of the Assessee sustainable, and the manner of initiating proceedings vitiates the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
