Concurrent Jurisdiction of JAO and FAO to initiate Re-assessment proceedings under Income-Tax Act: Supreme Court issues notice [Read Judgement]
The Supreme Court has ordered a stay on the assessment proceedings in question until the next date of hearing
Supreme Court, Income-Tax Act, Re-assessment proceedings, Concurrent Jurisdiction of JAO,
Supreme Court, Income-Tax Act, Re-assessment proceedings, Concurrent Jurisdiction of JAO,
The Supreme Court of India has issued notice in a batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the Income Tax Department, challenging the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
The High Court had previously dismissed the petitioners' writ pleas, upholding that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. While issuing a formal notice to the respondents, the Court has granted a significant interim relief to the petitioners.
Yukti Export and others filed the SLP. The Supreme Court has ordered a stay on the assessment proceedings in question until the next date of hearing. The Court has also permitted 'dasti' service of the notice on the respondents and has directed that these matters be tagged with another related case, for a likely joint hearing. This order effectively pauses the tax proceedings that the petitioners were contesting, pending further adjudication by the apex court.
The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by various assessees against the Income Tax Department, upholding its earlier position that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
The petitions challenged notices issued for re-assessment, with the petitioners contending that only the FAO, under the faceless assessment scheme, had the jurisdiction to issue such notices. They relied on judgments from other High Courts, such as the Bombay and Telangana High Courts, which had ruled in favour of exclusive FAO jurisdiction, and argued that the Supreme Court had implicitly settled the law by dismissing Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against those judgments.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
