Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
