9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then it is to the exclusion of the other. To take any other view in the matter, would not only result in chaos but also render the whole faceless proceedings redundant. If the argument of Revenue is to be accepted, then even when notices are issued by the FAO, it would be open to an assessee to make submission before the JAO and vice versa, which is clearly not contemplated in the Act. Therefore, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of both FAO or the JAO with respect to the issuance of notice under Section 148. When an authority acts contrary to law, the said act of the Authority 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 from the said Act. An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statue, itself causes prejudice to assessee. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law and by following the procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, when the Income Tax Authority proposes to take action against an assessee without following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strain the Respondent by themselves, their successors in office, subordinates, servants and agents by an interim order and injunction of this Hon ble Court from taking any further steps or proceedings pursuant to or in furtherance of or in implementation of the impugned notice dated 10.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act (Exhibit A ); 3. It is the petitioner s case that the petitioner filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 6 November 2017 inter alia declaring a total income of Rs.8,36,740/-, indicating a net loss of Rs.11,31,588/- under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession . It is also contended that on 17 August 2018, the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, intimating the petitioner that his return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment. Thereafter, a notice dated 30 September 2019 was issued to the petitioner under Section 142 (1) of the IT Act, whereby the petitioner was called upon to provide the relevant documents and explanation including the details of sales, purchases, bank statements, stock registers, loans / advances, details of investments etc., along with ledgers, bills, challans. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such issue would stand covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hexaware Technology Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai Ors Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 decided on 3 May 2024. He has drawn our attention to issue no.4 as framed by the Court which reads thus: Whether the impugned notice dated 27 August 2022 is invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Act? In answering such issue, the Court has held that the provisions of Section 151A of the IT Act had clearly brought a regime of faceless assessment. The Court held that it was not permissible for the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148, as the same would amount to breach of the provisions of section 151A of the IT Act. 9. The relevant observations of the court reads thus: 32. As regards issue no.4, Section 151A reads as under: Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment. Section 151A of the Act gives the power to the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) to notify the Scheme for : (i) the purpose of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.18/2022/F. No.370142/16/2022-TPL and formulated a Scheme. The Scheme provides that - (a) the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act, (b) and the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in Section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. 35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO in the Scheme dated 29th March, 2022, then it is to the exclusion of the other. To take any other view in the matter, would not only result in chaos but also render the whole faceless proceedings redu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
