https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755291 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 was invalid as it breached Section 151A provisions establishing faceless assessment regime. Following Hexaware Technology Ltd. precedent, the court ruled that JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) cannot have concurrent jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 29, 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The court emphasized that actions contrary to statutory provisions are inherently prejudicial to assessees, who are entitled to assessment following prescribed legal procedures. The invalid notice was quashed, deciding in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2024 10:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755291 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 was invalid as it breached Section 151A provisions establishing faceless assessment regime. Following Hexaware Technology Ltd. precedent, the court ruled that JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) cannot have concurrent jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 29, 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The court emphasized that actions contrary to statutory provisions are inherently prejudicial to assessees, who are entitled to assessment following prescribed legal procedures. The invalid notice was quashed, deciding in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755291