https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758634 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 mandating faceless assessment. Following Hexaware Technology Ltd., the court ruled that JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) do not 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 Revenue's non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme vitiated the entire proceedings, making the notice invalid. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:37:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758634 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 mandating faceless assessment. Following Hexaware Technology Ltd., the court ruled that JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) do not 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 Revenue's non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme vitiated the entire proceedings, making the notice invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758634