https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760493 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued under Section 148 for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment was invalid when issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as required under Section 151A. The Court ruled there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO for issuing Section 148 notices, following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 2022 scheme, it excludes the other officer's authority. The writ petition was allowed due to lack of jurisdiction. en-us Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:34:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760493 The Bombay HC held that a notice issued under Section 148 for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment was invalid when issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as required under Section 151A. The Court ruled there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO for issuing Section 148 notices, following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either JAO or FAO under the March 2022 scheme, it excludes the other officer's authority. The writ petition was allowed due to lack of jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760493