Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he faceless machinery could validly initiate or issue notices for reassessment. The court confined its inquiry to whether notices issued by JAOs complied with the faceless framework and whether the JAO was thereby denuded of jurisdiction to commence proceedings u/s 148 read with section 148A. Key Legal Issues * Whether the Faceless Reassessment Scheme, 2022 and section 144B of the Act oust the jurisdiction of the JAO to issue notices u/s 148 (and to initiate proceedings u/s 148A). * Whether the statutory scheme contemplates exclusive/faceless initiation of reassessment or concurrent jurisdiction (JAO and faceless authorities) in the pre- and post-notice stages. * How to harmonise Explanation 1 and 2 to section 148 (sources of "inform....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e RMS and Insight Portal aggregate third-party, AIR, CIB and other data and make that aggregated information visible to the JAO. The court emphasised that many sources of information contemplated by section 148 are received or viewable by the JAO directly and are not initially pushed to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Concurrent jurisdiction versus exclusive faceless jurisdiction A central debate is whether the faceless scheme ousts the JAO entirely. The revenue maintained that cases are selected by Directorate of Systems (RMS), flagged to JAOs, and JAOs conduct the inquiries u/s 148A; assessment is then allocated facelessly u/s 144B. Petitioners and several High Courts held that issuance of notices must follow the automat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Holdings and Reasoning * Main holding: The JAO is not completely divested of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. Notices issued by the JAO are not per se invalid merely because a faceless scheme exists; the statutory framework contemplates concurrent and complementary roles of JAO and NFAC. * Reasoning: The court relied on (a) the plain language of sections 144B and 151A and their scheme; (b) the role of RMS and Insight Portal which disseminate information to JAOs; (c) notifications u/s 120 conferring "concurrent" jurisdiction; (d) sub-section (7)/(8) of section 144B which envisage transfer back to the JAO; and (e) legislative choice to delete sub-section (9) to avoid automatic nullity. * Ratio: Where RMS or other sour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provision and the court's approach lessen risk that numerous notices become void for IT-portal technicalities; challenges remain available on other legal grounds. * Need for procedural consistency: Departments should document and follow clear processes (flagging, recording dates/times, approvals u/s 148A) to reduce disputes about issuance dates and compliance with Ashish Agarwal and subsequent directions. * Scope for future litigation: The decision does not close all avenues; assessees remain free to challenge reassessment on other grounds (e.g., lack of 'information', mala fide formation of opinion, procedural irregularities in 148A exercise). Conclusion The court construes the faceless reassessment architecture as comple....