The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional AO after the faceless regime came into force are invalid. The key takeaway is that only faceless authorities can initiate reassessment post-29 March 2022.
The ITAT held that reassessment notices issued by a JAO after 29.03.2022 are void, as only a Faceless Assessing Officer can act under the faceless regime.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated by a jurisdictional officer after the faceless scheme became mandatory was invalid. The key takeaway is that failure to follow the faceless mechanism nullifies the entire reopening, regardless of merits.
The Tribunal ruled that appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits, even if the taxpayer does not appear, reinforcing the mandate of Section 250(6).
The ITAT ruled that appeal limitation must be counted from the date the taxpayer gains knowledge of the order, setting aside dismissal wrongly made on delay grounds.
The ITAT held that professional negligence and continuous medical problems constitute sufficient cause, condoning a 261-day delay and reviving the appeal.
Chennai ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order under Section 263, confirming that when the AO adopts a plausible view and conducts proper scrutiny, revision is unwarranted.
The Karnataka High Court invalidated a faceless assessment because the show-cause notice gave the assessee less than seven days to respond, violating mandatory SOP and principles of natural justice.
