Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 2024 (7) TMI 511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - HC

Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law Reported as: 2024 (7) TMI 511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Introduction The article delves into a significant judgment rendered by the High Court (HC) concerning the validity of a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act (IT Act). The case revolves around the faceless assessment regime introduced through Section 151A of the IT Act , which aims to eliminate the interface between the Income Tax Authorities and the assessee, promoting greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Arguments Presented The petitioner, an assessee, challenged the impugned notice dated 10 April 2024, issued by the JAO u/s 148 of the IT Act , reopening the petitioner's assessment. The primary contention was that the issuance of the notice by the JAO was invalid and illegal, as it violated the provisions of Section 151A of the IT Act , which mandates a faceless assessment process. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15 (1) (2) , MUMBAI, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 6, PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNION OF INDIA. - 2024 (5) TMI 302 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , which held that the provisions of Section 151A had clearly established a regime of faceless assessment. The court in that case ruled that it was not permissible for the JAO to issue a notice u/s 148 , as it would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A . Discussions and Findings of the High Court (HC) The HC, after considering the arguments presented by both parties and perusing the record, observed the following: The provisions of Section 151A of the IT Act had brought about a regime of faceless assessment, as decided in Hexaware Technology Ltd. The court held that it was not permissible for the JAO to issue a notice u/s 148, as it would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A . There is no question of concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing a notice u/s 148 or passing assessment or reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Scheme dated 29 March 2022, it is to the exclusion of the other. Allowing concurrent jurisdiction would result in chaos and render the entire faceless proceedings redundant. When an authority acts contrary to law, the said act is required to be quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law, and the person seeking to quash such an action is not required to establish prejudice. An act done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statute itself causes prejudice to the assessee. Analysis of the High Court (HC) The HC's analysis in this case is a significant step towards upholding the principles of faceless assessment enshrined in Section 151A of the IT Act . The court's decision reinforces the notion that the issuance of notices u/s 148 must strictly adhere to the faceless assessment regime, ensuring transparency and accountability in the assessment process. The court's emphasis on the exclusivity of jurisdiction assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 is crucial. Allowing concurrent jurisdiction would undermine the very purpose of the faceless assessment regime and lead to chaos and redundancy in the proceedings. Furthermore, the court's observation that an act contrary to law itself causes prejudice to the assessee is a significant safeguard against arbitrary actions by the authorities. It upholds the principle that assessees are entitled to be assessed in accordance with the law and prescribed procedures. Concluding Remarks The High Court's judgment in this case is a landmark decision that upholds the sanctity of the faceless assessment regime introduced through Section 151A of the IT Act . It serves as a reminder to the Income Tax Authorities to strictly adhere to the prescribed procedures and jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring transparency and accountability in the assessment process. The judgment also reinforces the principle that assessees have a right to be assessed in accordance with the law, and any deviation from the prescribed procedures by the authorities is tantamount to causing prejudice to the assessee, warranting judicial intervention. Overall, this judgment is a significant step towards promoting a fair and efficient tax assessment system, while safeguarding the rights of assessees against arbitrary actions by the authorities. Summary The High Court, in this case, quashed and set aside the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The court held that the issuance of such notices by the JAO was invalid and illegal, as it violated the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, which mandates a faceless assessment process. The court relied on the decision in Hexaware Technology Ltd. and emphasized the exclusivity of jurisdiction assigned to either the JAO or the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) under the Scheme dated 29 March 2022. The judgment upholds the principles of transparency, accountability, and adherence to prescribed procedures in the tax assessment process. Full Text : 2024 (7) TMI 511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT