https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760494 The Bombay HC quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The court held that Section 151A mandates compliance with faceless assessment procedures, and there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO for issuing reassessment notices. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited, the court ruled that when specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The writ petition was allowed as the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:34:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760494 The Bombay HC quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The court held that Section 151A mandates compliance with faceless assessment procedures, and there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO for issuing reassessment notices. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited, the court ruled that when specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 2022 scheme, it excludes the other. The writ petition was allowed as the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760494