Section 151A of the Income Tax Act

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

The Completed Contract Method (CCM) is an accepted method of accounting for recognizing revenue from real estate contracts, allowing income recognition to be deferred until the contract's completion. The Supreme Court approved the use of CCM, having considered both CCM and the Percentage of Completion Method (POCM) under the framework of Section 145.

Filing an appeal or special leave petition before a higher court, including the Supreme Court, does not automatically stay the operation of the lower court's judgment. Without an explicit stay order, the lower court's decision remains enforceable and reliance on it is tenable.

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

The faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A applies from the stage of issuing show cause notices under Sections 148 and 148A, and non-compliance with the scheme or related notifications vitiates the subsequent assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings are considered to commence upon the issuance of such a show cause notice.

A notice issued under Section 148 by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid if it violates Section 151A and the related CBDT notification for faceless assessments, thereby defeating the scheme's purpose.

Section 124(3) of the Income-tax Act, which restricts an assessee from objecting to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, applies only to disputes concerning territorial jurisdiction as conferred by Section 120(1) or (2). It does not apply to objections regarding the Assessing Officer's inherent jurisdiction to frame an assessment.

Section 144B of the Income-tax Act is not the exclusive basis for all assessment and reassessment procedures, and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer retains the power to assess or reassess despite the introduction of Section 144B and the Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022.