https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757978 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 was invalid as it violated Section 151A provisions establishing faceless assessment regime. Following precedents in Nainraj Enterprises and Hexaware Technology, 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 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The court emphasized that allowing concurrent jurisdiction would create chaos and render faceless proceedings redundant. The notice was quashed as contrary to law, with the court noting that procedural violations inherently prejudice assessees. Decision favored the assessee. en-us Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2024 09:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757978 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 was invalid as it violated Section 151A provisions establishing faceless assessment regime. Following precedents in Nainraj Enterprises and Hexaware Technology, 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 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The court emphasized that allowing concurrent jurisdiction would create chaos and render faceless proceedings redundant. The notice was quashed as contrary to law, with the court noting that procedural violations inherently prejudice assessees. Decision favored the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757978