Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Amendment in Faceless Assessment under section 144B of the Act

      1 February, 2022

      Contents
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Amendment in Faceless Assessment under section 144B of the Act

      The Central Government has undertaken a number of measures to make the processes under the Act electronic, by eliminating person to person interface between the taxpayer and the Department to the extent technologically feasible, and provide for optimal utilisation of resources and a team-based assessment with dynamic jurisdiction. As part of this policy, vide Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, section 144B was inserted in the Act to provide the procedure for faceless assessment with effect from 01.04.2021 and the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 ceased to operate from that date.

      2. However, various difficulties are being faced by the administration and the taxpayers in the operation of the faceless assessment procedure. In view of the above, it is proposed that the existing provisions of the section 144B of the Act may be amended to streamline the process of faceless assessment in order to address the various legal and procedural problems being faced in the implementation of the said section.

      3. Therefore, it is proposed to substitute section 144B of the Act so as to provide that––

      (a) the provisions of the proposed section shall apply for faceless assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147 of the Act, as the case may be, in the cases specified therein.

      (b) the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) shall assign the case selected for the purposes of faceless assessment to a specific Assessment Unit (AU) and intimate the assessee that assessment in his case shall be completed in accordance with the procedure laid down in the proposed section.

      (c) the assessee shall be served a notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of the Act, through the NaFAC. The assessee may file his response to the aforementioned notice under sub-section (3) of section 143, within the date specified in such notice in this regard, to the NaFAC, which shall forward the reply to the AU.

      (d) Thereafter, the AU may make a request, through the NaFAC, for obtaining such further information, documents or evidence from the assessee or any other person, as it may specify and the NaFAC shall serve appropriate notice or requisition on the assessee or any other person for obtaining such information, documents or evidence. The AU may also make a request, through the NaFAC, for conducting enquiry or verification by Verification Unit (VU) and the request shall be assigned by the NaFAC to a VU through an automated allocation system. The AU may also similarly make a request in respect of determination of arm’s length price, valuation of property, withdrawal of registration, approval, exemption or any other technical matter by referring to the technical unit and the request shall be assigned by the NaFAC to a Technical Unit (TU) through an automated allocation system.

      (e) The assessee or any other person, as the case may be, shall file his response in compliance to the said notice served by NaFAC, at the request of AU, to the NaFAC which shall forward the reply to the AU. If the assessee fails to comply with the said notice seeking information served by NaFAC, or the earlier notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 or under sub-section (1) of section 142, the NaFAC shall intimate the same to the AU. The AU shall serve upon the assessee, through NaFAC, a show cause notice under section 144 giving him the opportunity to explain as to why the assessment in his case should not be completed to the best of its judgement. Further any report received by the NaFAC, from the VU or TU shall also be forwarded to the AU.

      (f) The assessee shall file his response to the show-cause notice under section 144 of the Act, within the time specified in such notice, to the NaFAC which shall forward the same to the AU. If the assessee fails to respond, the NaFAC shall intimate the same to the AU.

      (g) The AU shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record, prepare in writing, an income or loss determination proposal where no variation prejudicial to assessee is proposed and send the same to the NaFAC.

      If a variation is being proposed then a show cause notice is served on the assessee stating the variations proposed to be made to the income of the assessee and calling upon him to submit as to why the proposed variation should not be made, through the NaFAC.

      (h) The assessee shall file his reply to the show cause notice to the NaFAC, on date and time as specified, which shall forward the reply to the AU. If the assessee fails to respond within the specified time, the NaFAC shall intimate the same to the AU. After considering the response of the assessee or the intimation of failure of the assessee to file a response received from NaFAC and all relevant material available on the record, the AU shall prepare an income or loss determination proposal, in writing, and send the same to the NaFAC.

      (i) Upon receipt of the income or loss determination proposal, with or without any variations proposed to the income of the assessee, as the case may be, the NaFAC may, on the basis of guidelines issued by the Board, convey to the AU to prepare draft order in accordance with such income or loss determination proposal, which shall thereafter prepare a draft order, or assign the income or loss determination proposal to a Review Unit (RU) through an automated allocation system, which shall conduct a review of such order, prepare a review report and send it to NaFAC.

      (j) The NaFAC shall forward the review report received from the RU to the AU which had proposed the income or loss determination proposal. The AU may accept or reject some or all of the modifications proposed in such review report, prepare a draft order accordingly, and send it to NaFAC. The AU shall record reasons in writing if it is rejecting the modifications proposed by the RU.

       (k) The NaFAC shall, upon receiving draft order in a case of eligible assessee, where there is a proposal to make any variation which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee under sub-section (1) of section 144C for reference to Dispute Resolution Panel, serve such draft order on the assessee. In any case, other than that of eligible assessee under section 144C, the NaFAC shall convey to the AU to complete the assessment in accordance with such draft order, which shall thereafter pass the final assessment order and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send it to the NaFAC. The NaFAC shall serve a copy of such final assessment order, notice for initiating penalty proceedings, if any and the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to the assessee on the basis of such assessment, to the assessee.

      (l) An eligible assessee, as referred to in section 144C, shall, upon receiving the draft order as served on him above, shall file his acceptance of the variations proposed in such draft order or file objections, if any, to such variations, with the Dispute Resolution Panel, under section 144C and the NaFAC, within the period specified in sub-section (2) of section 144C.

      (m) In case the variations proposed in the draft order are accepted by the assessee or not objected to within the time given in sub-section (2) of section 144C, the NaFAC shall intimate the AU of the same, which shall complete the assessment, on the basis of the draft order, within the time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send the order to the NaFAC.

      (n) Where the eligible assessee files objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel, against the variations proposed in the draft order in his case, the NaFAC shall send such intimation along with a copy of such objections to the AU. Upon receipt of the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel in the case of an eligible assessee under section 144C, the NaFAC shall forward such directions to the AU. The AU shall complete the assessment within the time allowed in sub-section (13) of section 144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, in conformity with the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) of section 144C, and send a copy of such order to the NaFAC.

      (o) The NaFAC shall, upon receipt of final assessment order, in the case of an eligible assessee under section 144C or in other cases, serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings, if any, on the assessee, along with the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment. The NaFACshall, after completion of assessment, transfer all the electronic records of the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the said case for such action as may be required under the Income-tax Act.

      (p) The proposed section also provides that faceless assessment shall be made in respect of persons or class of persons, or incomes or class of incomes, or cases or class of cases or such territorial area, as may be specified by the Board.

      (q) The proposed section also provides that Board may, for the purposes of faceless assessment, set up the following Centre and units and specify their functions and jurisdiction, namely:-

      (i) a National Faceless Assessment Centre to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment proceedings in a centralised manner;

      (ii) assessment units (referred to as AU), as it may deem necessary to conduct the faceless assessment, to perform the function of making assessment, which includes identification of points or issues material for the determination of any liability (including refund) under the Act, seeking information or clarification on points or issues so identified, analysis of the material furnished by the assessee or any other person, and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of making faceless assessment and the term “assessment unit”, wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers to the extent so assigned by the Board; ;

      (iii) verification units (referred to as VU), as it may deem necessary to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment, to perform the function of verification, which includes enquiry, cross verification, examination of books of account, examination of witnesses and recording of statements, and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of verification and the term “verification unit”, wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned by the Board;:

      Further, the function of verification unit under this section may also be performed by a verification unit located in any other faceless centre set up under the provisions of this Act or under any scheme notified under the provisions of the Act and the request for verification may also be assigned through the National Faceless Assessment Centre to such verification unit.;

      (iv) technical units (referred to as TU), as it may deem necessary to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment, to perform the function of providing technical assistance which includes any assistance or advice on legal, accounting, forensic, information technology, valuation, transfer pricing, data analytics, management or any other technical matter under this Act or an agreement entered into under sections 90 or 90A, which may be required in a particular case or a class of cases and the term “technical unit”, wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned by the Board;

      (v) review units (referred to as RU), as it may deem necessary to facilitate the conduct of faceless assessment, to perform the function of review of the income determination proposal assigned under sub-clause (b) of clause (xix) of sub-section (1), which includes checking whether the relevant and material evidence has been brought on record, relevant points of fact and law have been duly incorporated, the issues on which addition or disallowance should be made have been incorporated and such other functions as may be required for the purposes of review and the term “review unit”, wherever used in this section, shall refer to an Assessing Officer having powers so assigned by the Board.

      (r) It is also proposed that the AU, VU, TU and the RU shall have the following authorities, namely:-

      (i) Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, as the case may be;

      (ii) Deputy Commissioner or Deputy Director or Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Director, or Income-tax Officer, as the case may be;

      (iii) such other income-tax authority, ministerial staff, executive or consultant, as considered necessary by the Board.

      (s) The proposed section also provides that all communication, among the AU, RU, VU or TU or with the assessee or any other person with respect to the information or documents or evidence or any other details, as may be necessary for the purposes of making a faceless assessment shall be through the NaFAC, between the NaFAC and the assessee, or his authorised representative, or any other person and all internal communications between the NaFAC and various units shall be exchanged exclusively by electronic mode. However, this provision shall not apply to the enquiry or verification conducted by the verification unit in the circumstances as may be specified by the Board in this regard.

      (t) It is further proposed that for the purposes of faceless assessment, an electronic record shall be authenticated by the NaFAC by way of an electronic communication, by the AU or VU or TU or RU, as the case may be, by affixing digital signature and by the assessee or any other person, by affixing his digital signature or under electronic verification code, or by logging into his registered account in the designated portal. It is also proposed that every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered account of the assessee or by sending an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of the assessee or his authorised representative or by uploading an authenticated copy on the assessee's Mobile App, and followed by a real time alert.

      (u) The proposed section further seeks to provide that the assessee shall file his response to any notice or order or any other electronic communication, through his registered account, and once an acknowledgement is sent by the NaFAC containing the hash result generated upon successful submission of response, the response shall be deemed to be authenticated. The time and place of dispatch and receipt of electronic record shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

      (v) A person shall not be required to appear either personally or through authorised representative in connection with any proceedings before any unit set up under the proposed section.

      (w) Further, it is proposed that in a case where a variation is proposed in the income or loss determination proposal or the draft order, and an opportunity is provided to the assessee by serving a notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per such income or loss determination proposal, the assessee or his authorised representative, as the case may be, may request for personal hearing so as to make his oral submissions or present his case before the income-tax authority of the relevant unit. Where the request for personal hearing has been received, the income-tax authority of relevant unit shall allow such hearing, through NaFAC, which shall be conducted exclusively through video conferencing or video telephony, including use of any telecommunication application software which supports video conferencing or video telephony, to the extent technologically feasible, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board. Any examination or recording of the statement of the assessee or any other person (other than the statement recorded in the course of survey under section 133A) shall be conducted by an income-tax authority in the relevant unit, exclusively through video conferencing or video telephony, including use of any telecommunication application software which supports video conferencing or video telephony, to the extent technologically feasible, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board.

      (x) It is proposed that the Board shall establish suitable facilities for video conferencing or video telephony including telecommunication application software which supports video conferencing or video telephony at such locations as may be necessary, so as to ensure that the assessee, or his authorised representative, or any other person is not denied the benefit of faceless assessment merely on the consideration that such assessee or his authorised representative, or any other person does not have access to video conferencing or video telephony at his end. The Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in charge of the NaFAC shall, with the prior approval of the Board, lay down the standards, procedures and processes in the specified manner for effective functioning of the NaFAC and the units set up, in an automated and mechanised environment.

      (y) The proposed section also seeks to provide that if at any stage of the proceedings before it, the AU having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialized nature of business activity of the assessee, and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so, it may, upon recording its reasons in writing, refer the case to the NaFAC stating that the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 142 may be invoked in the case. The Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in charge of the NaFAC shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Board in this regard, if he considers appropriate that the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 142 may be invoked in the case, forward the reference received from the AU to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such case, and inform the AU accordingly. Such case shall also be taken up for transfer to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer with the approval of the Board. Where a reference has been received the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, having jurisdiction over such case, he shall direct the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such case to invoke the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 142. However, where a reference has not been forwarded to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, having jurisdiction over such case, the AU shall proceed to complete the assessment in accordance with the procedure laid down in the proposed section.

      (z) It is also proposed to provide that the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, as the case may be, in charge of National Faceless Assessment Centre may, at any stage of the assessment, if considered necessary, transfer the case, in addition to a case referred to in (y) to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such case, with the prior approval of the Board. It is also proposed to define the terms such as electronic verification code, assessment unit, technical unit, verification unit, review unit etc used in the proposed section.

      This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2022.

      (II) Sub-section (9) of section 144B of the Act provides that the assessment proceedings shall be void if the procedure mentioned in the section was not followed. The said sub-section refers to violation of the procedure laid down by the law whereas a large number of disputes have been raised under this subsection involving technical issues arising due to use of information technology, leading to unnecessary litigation. It is, therefore, proposed to omit this subsection i.e., sub-section (9) of section 144B from its date of inception.

      This amendment will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2021.

      [Clause 42]

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax