Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
