https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759495 The Bombay HC held that a reassessment notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was invalid. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited, the court ruled that Section 151A mandates compliance with faceless assessment procedures, creating exclusive jurisdiction for either JAO or FAO as specified in the March 29, 2022 scheme. The court rejected the Revenue's argument for concurrent jurisdiction, stating it would create chaos and render faceless proceedings redundant. The case was decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:47:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759495 The Bombay HC held that a reassessment notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was invalid. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited, the court ruled that Section 151A mandates compliance with faceless assessment procedures, creating exclusive jurisdiction for either JAO or FAO as specified in the March 29, 2022 scheme. The court rejected the Revenue's argument for concurrent jurisdiction, stating it would create chaos and render faceless proceedings redundant. The case was decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759495