9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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. We find substance in contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner considering that the impugned notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer, which is outside the faceless mechanism as provided under the provisions of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olve both the Revenue as also the assessee to face further proceedings, for the reason that our orders in such manner create further litigation between the Revenue and the assessees. We may observe that the endeavor of the Court would always be, that at least, the orders passed by the Court ought not to generate any litigation between the parties much less a further litigation with which we are concerned. - G. S. KULKARNI AND SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN JJ. For The Petitioner: Mr. Akshay Zante For The Respondents: Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma P.C. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a relief that a notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) dated 19 March 2024 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e noted, which is to the effect that there are scores of matters being filed, seeking similar reliefs, in which parties are asserting that such proceedings would stand covered by the decision of this Court in Hexaware. We have in fact disposed of several cases following the said decision, as rendered by the Division Bench by allowing such petitions. No doubt in all these proceedings decided by this Court following the decision in Hexaware, a fair stand was taken on behalf of the Revenue that the proceeding would stand covered by such decision and accordingly they could be disposed of. 4. However, what now bothers us and more so judicially, is that neither for the assessee nor for the revenue, the ball would stop rolling. This, in as much as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues achieve a quietus. This is however only a passing thought, which cannot always be a realistic situation. Be that as it may, admittedly, the Supreme Court is seized with the proceedings arising from Hexaware and an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on issues of law as involved is awaited. It is also rightly pointed out by Mr. Sharma that this is also burdening the Revenue for the reason of time- bound preparation of appellate proceedings to be filed before the Supreme Court, adding to the substantial expenditure of not only the Revenue but also of the assessee to defend such proceedings, before the Supreme Court. Apart from Hexaware such issues have also arisen before the Supreme Court from the decisions as rendered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
