https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760492 The Bombay HC quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required under Section 151A. The court held that JAO and FAO do not have concurrent jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices, and specific jurisdiction assigned to either officer excludes the other. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited, the court ruled that non-compliance with Section 151A renders the notice invalid, allowing the writ petition and emphasizing that accepting concurrent jurisdiction would create chaos and undermine faceless proceedings. 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=760492 The Bombay HC quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required under Section 151A. The court held that JAO and FAO do not have concurrent jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notices, and specific jurisdiction assigned to either officer excludes the other. Following the precedent in Hexaware Technologies Limited, the court ruled that non-compliance with Section 151A renders the notice invalid, allowing the writ petition and emphasizing that accepting concurrent jurisdiction would create chaos and undermine faceless proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760492