\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue\u2019s 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) \u00a0464 ITR 430 Bom)( HC) \u00a0the 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 \u00a0\u00a0(Bom HC) \u00a0\u00a0and Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Dy.CIT \u00a0(2024)468 ITR 346\u00a0 \u00a0(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.\u00a0 \u00a02018\u201319)\u00a0 SLP (C) Diary No. 39689\/2025, dt. 18-08-2025<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice- Faceless regime \u2013 Jurisdiction of JAO \u2013 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 ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-eBj","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56129","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56129"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56129\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56130,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56129\/revisions\/56130"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}