9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Sharma a/w. Ms Neha Shama Mr. Samyak Navedia. For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms Shreya Singhi i/b. Ms Sushma Nagraj. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 of the Act. The Scheme dated 29th March 2022 in paragraph 3 clearly provides that the issuance of notice shall be through automated allocation which means that the same is mandatory and is required to be followed by the Department and does not give any discretion to the Department to choose whether to follow it or not. That automated allocation is defined in paragraph 2 (b) of the Scheme to mean an algorithm for randomised allocation of cases by using suitable technological tools including artificial intelligence and machine learning with a view to optimise the use of resources. Therefore, it means that the case can be allocated randomly to any officer who would then have jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act. It is not the case of respondent no. 1 that respondent no. 1 was the random officer who had been allocated jurisdiction. 36. With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t following the due process of law, the said action itself results in a prejudice to assessee. Therefore, there is no question of petitioner having to prove further prejudice before arguing the invalidity of the notice. [Emphasis Supplied] 5. In the present case, it is apparent that the respondent-Revenue has not complied with the Scheme notified by the Central Government pursuant to Section 151A (2) of the Act. The Scheme has also been tabled in Parliament and is in the character of subordinate legislation, which governs the conduct of proceedings under Section 148A as well as Section 148 of the Act. In view of the explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware, the grievance of the petitioner-Assessee insofar as it relates to an invalid issuance of a notice is sustainable and consequently, the very manner in which the proceedings have been initiated, vitiates the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for both the parties agree that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act would not be sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Assessee has also drawn our attention to a recent decision of this Court in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f applicability of the said provisions in respect of these exceptions sought to be urged by the revenue, namely, central charges and international tax charges. The Court in the said case made the following observations:- 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mistry, the learned amicus, it is clear to us that although the objection of Ms. Goel at the first blush appeared to be attractive, when we first heard the matter on earlier occasion, however on a deeper scrutiny, such objection needs to fail. Ms Goel s contention that the category of cases as notified under order(s) dated 31 March, 2021 and 6 September, 2021 issued under section 119 of the Act providing for exclusion of cases assigned to the central and international charges from the applicability of Section 144B of the Act is concerned, certainly cannot be accepted to be the correct position in law. 13. Such contention of Ms Goel needs to fail for more than one reason. Firstly, the order dated 31 March, 2021 issued under subsection (2) of Section 144B of I.T. Act and order dated 6 September, 2021 issued under section 119 of the Act apply only in respect of assessment orders to be passed, as clearly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tability inter alia by eliminating the interface between the income tax authority, optimizing utilization of the resources through economies of scale and functional specialization, and by introducing a team based assessment, reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section 151A of the Act. 15. Thus, on a bare reading of section 151A as it stands, read with the scheme notified thereunder, we are of the clear opinion that the observations as contained in Paragraphs 10 and 11 of our decision in CapitalG LP do not require any reconsideration. 16. In the above context, Mr. Mistry has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine TS 1792) to contend that such decision fortifies the view taken by us in CapitalG LP (supra) to submit that such decision takes a similar view, when an identical issue had fallen for consideration of the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana, namely, whether the show cause notice issued under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
