T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that the NFAC and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) hold concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, reassessment notice u/s. 148 issued by JAO is within jurisdiction and thus sustainable in law.
Facts- Vide the present petition, the petitioner assail the validity of reassessment action initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Although that action is impugned on various grounds, however, the petitioners have confined their submissions to the issue of whether a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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.
Conclusion- In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), 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. The CBDT notifications further affirm this shared responsibility, specifying that the NFAC and the JAO hold concurrent jurisdiction, thereby allowing the faceless system to conduct assessments without stripping the JAO of its foundational authority.
The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and con-current as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework. This we so hold and observe since we have, principally, been unable to countenance a situation where the JAO stands completely deprived of the jurisdiction to evaluate data and material that may be placed in its hands.
