Vijay Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Reassessment notices was quashed as the same was issued by Jurisdictional Assessment Officers (JAOs) instead of the designated Faceless Assessment Officers (FAOs).
Held: Assessee had challenged the notices alleging, inter alia, that the notices were not valid on the ground that they had been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessment Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO). The Court relied on the precedent laid down by the Bombay High Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and observed that non-issuance of notice by FAO would make the notice invalid. Revenue stated that if the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited was interfered with by the Apex Court, then liberty be given to the Revenue to take steps as available in accordance with law to revive these notices. The court held that Revenue would be permitted to revive the show cause notices already issued and take further proceedings in accordance with law. It was also clarified that other connected legal issues not directly covered by this ruling remained open to be contested at the appropriate stage.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
These petitions, we are informed, are pending before the learned Single Judge, in which, the assessees have challenged the notices alleging, inter alia, that the notices are not valid on the ground that they have been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessment Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO).
