Issue of Notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would be valid and compliant with the Faceless Scheme of Assessment: Delhi HC

 

Writ Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (DHC) on the issue of whether a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) would be valid and compliant with the Faceless Scheme of Assessment which had come to be adopted by virtue of Sections 144B and 151A of the Act.

Hon’ble DHC had observed all the judgments quoted by Petitioner on the issue which includes

1. Hon’ble Telangana High Court in “Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-tax Officer” & “Venkataramana Reddy Patloola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others”,

2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in “Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax” & “Kairos Properties Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax and Others”,

3. High Court of Gauhati in Ram Narayan Sah v. Union of India and Others,

4. High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Another v. Union of India and Others .

Revenue had filed detailed additional affidavit in the matter, which was never placed before other High Courts. Revenue had, along with the compilation, filed all the Instructions, clarifications etc. issued by the Department of Revenue from time to time.

Hon’ble DHC observed Section 135A, Section 144B, Section 148, Section 151A, notifications and instructions pertaining to the faceless scheme or assessment issued till date. Hon’ble DHC observed the judgement in the case of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) wherein, the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.

Hon’ble DHC observed that the decisions of various High Courts which have taken a contrary view, have proceeded on the basis that consequent to faceless assessment coming into force by virtue of Section 144B, the JAO stands completely deprived of jurisdiction. It observed that, most of the High Court do not appear to have had the benefit of reviewing the copious material which Revenue had so assimilated and placed for the consideration. They also do not appear to have had the advantage of a principled stand of the respondents having been placed on the record of those proceedings.

Hon’ble DHC negated the stand of the Petitioner that the impugned notices are liable be quashed merely on the ground of the same having been issued by the JAO.

This judgement has a wider implication on the judgements pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (SC).

It may be recalled now that Hon’ble SC has issued notice in SLP filed by the Revenue against the Hon’ble BHC judgment in Hexaware Technologies and tagged the matter along with Hon’ble Telangana HC judgment in Surya Lakshmi Cotton Mills and other connected matters on the issue of whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) holds simultaneous jurisdiction over tax payers in addition to Faceless Assessment Officers (FAO). This batch matters is likely to be listed for hearing on 19.11.2024

The copy of the Order  is as under:

1730699998178