9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 ("the Act"), and also the underlying prior notice and order under Section 148A (b) and Section 148A (d) of the Act, respectively. The reassessment under Section 148 of the Act has been initiated in respect of returns filed by the Petitioner-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the impugned notice dated 12 March, 2022 and 22 March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed thereon under Section 148A(d) dated 30 March, 2022 and the consequent notice dated 30 March, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are all issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer ("JAO") and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer ("FAO"), as is required by the provisions of Section 151A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the JAO. The argument advanced by respondent would render clause 3(b) of the Scheme otiose and to be ignored or contravened, as according to respondent, even though the Scheme specifically provides for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner, no notice is required to be issued under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner. In such a situation, not only clause 3(b) but also the first two lines below clause 3(b) would be otiose, as it deals with the aspect of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Respondents, being an authority subordinate to the CBDT, cannot argue that the Scheme framed by the CBDT, and which has been laid before both House of Parliament is partly otiose and inapplicable. ...... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee submits that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act would not be sustainable in view of the judgment rendered in Hexaware and recent decision of this Court in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Writ Petition (L.) No. 16918 of 2024 dt. 2-07-2024, whereby in similar circumstances, this Court has allowed the petition considering the provisions of Section 151A of the Act. 7. Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit that in this case the impugned notice dated 30 March, 2022 was issued one day after the notification dated 29 March, 2022, which was issued by the Central Government notifying the scheme under Section 151A of the Act. It is therefore his submission that a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
