TVS Credit Services Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the question of jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to conduct proceedings under section 148A of the Income Tax Act is referred to Larger Bench. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Facts- Writ petitions are filed challening either notices under Section 148 and/or order under Section 147 of the Act, on the common premise that proceedings under Section 148 A of the Act was conducted by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in a faceless manner.
Conclusion- High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax has held that the Scheme is clearly applicable for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and accordingly, it is only the FAO which can issue the notice under section 148 of the Act and not the JAO. The argument advanced by respondent would render clause 3(b) of the Scheme otiose and to be ignored or contravened, as according to respondent, even though the Scheme specifically provides for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner, no notice is required to be issued under section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner.
