9911796707
TMI BlogNavigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial PerspectiveX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esented The petitioner challenged the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, along with the underlying prior notice and order u/ss 148A(b) and 148A(d) , respectively. The primary contention was that these notices and orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as mandated by Section 151A of the Act and the relevant notification. The Revenue contended that while the notice u/s 148 might be quashed, the order passed u/s 148A(d) and the notice issued u/s 148A(b) should not be set aside, as the requirement to issue notices in the faceless mode is specific to Section 148 and not applicable to Section 148A . Discussions and Findings of the Court Jurisdictional Aspect The court relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded that the Central Government did not exercise its power u/s 151A(2) to exclude the applicability of Section 148A from the Scheme's scope. Therefore, the entire process, including the steps u/s 148A culminating in the issuance of a notice u/s 148, must adhere to the faceless mechanism. Consequently, the court held that the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and orders, rendering them illegal and invalid. The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notices and orders, emphasizing the importance of following the due process prescribed by law. Doctrine or Legal Principle The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted harmoniously and in a manner that upholds the legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Section 148A falls outside the Scheme's ambit, reasoning that such an interpretation would defeat the objectives outlined in Section 151A(1). The judgment reinforces the principle of harmonious interpretation of statutory provisions and the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures and jurisdictional boundaries. It also highlights the court's reliance on the Division Bench judgment 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 clarified the jurisdictional aspects of the JAO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
