ITO v. Prakash Pandurang Patil. (2025) 481 ITR 332/306 Taxman 341 (SC) Editorial : Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO (2025) 481 ITR 325 /177 taxmann.com 552 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless regime-Jurisdiction of JAO-Notice after three years-Sanction of Specified Authority-Approval to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner-Approval from Principal Commissioner-Sanction is invalid-Order and consequent notice is invalid-SLP delayed by 248 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. S. 147, 148A(b) 148A(d) 151(i), 151(ii) 151A, Art. 136]

High Court dismissed the assessee’s writ petition against the order under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the notice of reassessment under section 148 issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the officer under the faceless scheme, holding that when there was no dispute that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the order and notices in question, the order and the notices issued by him were not in compliance with the scheme notified by the Central Government implementing the provisions of section 151A of the Act which was in the nature of a subordinate legislation governing the conduct of proceedings under section 148A and section 148 of the Act, and that thus the order and notice were invalid and the proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Act were not sustainable.  The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay of 248 days, as well as the merits.(AY. 2018-19)

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*