| Head Notes: |
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 S. 148 – SLP of revenue was dismissed for failure to explain the delay and also on merits. [S. 147, 148A(b) 148A(d) 151(i), 151(ii) 151A, Art. 136]
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP (with delay of 248 days) against the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court had quashed the reassessment notice dated 05.04.2022 issued for AY 2018-19 on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 once the faceless regime under section 151A (Notification dated 29.03.2022) had come into force. Only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) could issue such notice through automated allocation. Relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd v. ACIT(2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)(HC), the Court held that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO, and any contrary view would render the faceless scheme redundant. Additionally, since the reassessment was initiated beyond 3 years, sanction had to be obtained from higher authority u/s 151(ii), as held in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159/ 457 ITR 647 (Bom HC) and Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2024)468 ITR 346 (Bom HC). Since the sanction was wrongly granted by PCIT under s.151(i), the approval itself was invalid. The Bombay High Court therefore declared the notice and order u/s 148A(d) as void and without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court refused to interfere and dismissed the SLP both on delay as well as merits. (AY. 2018-19) SLP (C) Diary No. 39689/2025, dt. 18-08-2025.
ITO v. Prakash Pandurang Patil (SC) www.itatonline.org.
Editorial: affirming Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO. (Bom)(HC), WP No. 10749 of 2024, dt. 12-08-2024.
[Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan]
|
This dismissal of SLP is likely to result in the dismissal of the review petition filed in the earlier SLP dismissed on the issue of JAO vs FAO..
NO TILL IT FINALY DECIEDED BY SUPREME COURT IN 700 HUNDRED WRIT PENDIMG
A division bench comprising two honourable judges has dismissed the SLP, and the bunch of 700 SLPs is also with another division bench of two judges then, generally, the decision delivered by a co-ordinate bench will be followed, and if there is a different opinion then it should be referred to a larger bench. Since, a division bench has dismissed the SLP on the same issue, it must carry weightage, particularly when a review petition was pending before the same bench and they have dismissed the SLP. Let us hope for an early conclusion to the matter