https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758631 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 was invalid as it violated Section 151A of the IT Act, which mandates faceless assessment. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technology Ltd., the court ruled that the Revenue failed to comply with the Central Government's scheme under Section 151A(2). The court emphasized that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer, and when specific jurisdiction is assigned to either officer under the March 29, 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the proceedings initiated through the invalid notice. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:37:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758631 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 was invalid as it violated Section 151A of the IT Act, which mandates faceless assessment. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technology Ltd., the court ruled that the Revenue failed to comply with the Central Government's scheme under Section 151A(2). The court emphasized that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer, and when specific jurisdiction is assigned to either officer under the March 29, 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the proceedings initiated through the invalid notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758631