The High Court reiterated that the ‘Faceless Assessment Mechanism’ was implemented to boost productivity and efficiency while endorsing its predominance over a regular reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The Bombay High Court in a Writ Petition before it clarified that the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) cannot simultaneously exercise their independent powers to adjudicate the very same matter pertaining to the same Assessee. The Writ Petition was lodged by Tilak Ventures Ltd. challenging the notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to conduct reassessment of the Returns filed by the Petitioner-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here The Notice under Section 148 was issued subsequent to Intimation provided to the Petitioner-Assessee under Section 148A(b) and decision to pass order under Section 148, made effective by provisions of Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court observed that all the above-mentioned notices had been served to the Petitioner-Assessee by a JAO and not a FAO as is required by the provisions of Section 151A of the Act. Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here On account of the Revenue Department’s default in complying with the provisions of Section 151A, the Bombay High Court scrutinized the present case in adherence with the decision of its Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4 Ors (2024). It was held in Hexawarethat ‘there can be no question of concurrent jurisdiction exercised by the FAO and JAO for issuance of Notice under Section 148 or for passing an assessment or reassessment Order under the Income Tax Act, 1961’. The High Court endorsed its own statements  by  referring to Notification No. 18/2022/F. No. 370142/16/2022-TPL dated 29 March, 2022 titled “e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022” issued by the Central Bureau of Indirect Taxes. Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here Section 3(b) of the Notification provides that issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act shall be devised through an ‘automated allocation system’ and is to be conducted providing maximum priority to the Faceless Assessment Mechanism under Section 144B. Further, such Notice under Section 148 can be issued only by a Faceless Assessing Officer; exercise of similar powers by any other Assessing Officer(s) is contrary to provisions of law and any act undertaken by the Authority in this regard is required to be quashed. Get a Copy of Bharat’s Income Tax Act, Click here The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan upheld the precedential value of Hexaware while emphasizing the ‘subordinate legislation’ of the Notification issued by the CBDT owing to its tabling in the Parliament prior to publishing. In light of the findings, the Bombay High Court proceeded to dispose of the Writ Petition, vitiating the proceedings initiated by the JAO in contravention of the provisions of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in conjunction with the e-assessment Scheme introduced vide CBDT Notification