ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SACHIV SAHNI, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 29.08.2025 [Date Requires Verification], impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2020-21.

“6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us with regard to additional ground. From the records we noticed that the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of the assessment in the case of the assessee is mentioned below: 7. From the above table we noticed that all the notices for the respective assessment years were issued by the JAO. In our view the JAO could not have assumed jurisdiction and frame the impugned assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, in this regard of the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 144B / 151A of the Act. We also noticed that the said assessment, having been framed dehorse, the faceless assessment scheme and in violation of the statutory mandate, which in our view is without jurisdiction and thus null and void. 8. Our above view also stands fortified by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 3221/Mum/2025 and Ors. in the case of Veda Real Estate Corporation Pvt Ltd. which is reproduced herein below: 19. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that this ground No.1 is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT in assessee's own case for the A.Y 2012- 13 in ITA No. 3220/Mum/2025, dated 28.10.2025and the operative portion of the order is reproduced here in below: "41. Having disposed of the additions of merits, we now turn to legal ground concerning the validity of the assessment itself. Upon the submissions and the judicial precedents, especially of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is a binding precedent on us, we are persuaded that the reassessment edifice is untenable on two independent yet converging grounds. The assessee has assailed the reassessment orders on two principal planks first, that the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, in contravention of the scheme notified under section 151A vide Notification S.O. 1466(E) dated 29th March 2022; since the assessment order does not bears Document Identification Number (DIN), the same is non est as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019. On the first issue, thelegal position is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)) has decisively explained that where Parliament and the delegated notification have assigned jurisdiction to the faceless unit, the jurisdiction of the local officer stands eclipsed. The scheme does not contemplate a concurrent or overlapping authority. Any notice issued dehors the faceless framework is coram non-judice and the proceeding is void at inception. The exposition laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT has since been consistently followed by the same Court in Capital G LP v. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO ((2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)), and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT (2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)), thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but a jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the Faceless Assessing Officer, any notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is coram non judice and consequently void ab initio. 42….. 43…… 44…… 45….. 46….

47Having held so, it necessarily follows that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, in violation of the Faceless Scheme under section 151A and compounded by the failure to generate and quote a valid DIN, stand vitiated in law. The dualbreaches one jurisdictional, the other procedural strike at the root of the assessment's validity. The notice under section 148, having been issued by an officer not authorised under the notified scheme, is coram non judice, and the subsequent order passed without a valid DIN is a nullity. This conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), which has been consistently followed in Capital G LP v. ACIT (Writ Petition No. 15289 of 2024), Abhin Anil Kumar Shah v. ITO ((2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)], and Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. ACIT (2024) 166 Taxmann.com 168 (Bom)). The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT (SLP (C) No. 18753/2025] lends further imprimatur to this legal position. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the reassessment orders impugned before us are void ab initio, both for want of jurisdiction and for breach of mandatory procedural require. 48. The third legal infirmity relates to the manner in which the impugned notice dated 27.01.2023 has been issued under section 148. The AO has issued the notice under section 148. on the ground that the search was conducted on the assesse despite the fact that no search was ever conducted on the assesse. The reliance on the full bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd Farhan A Sheik (125 taxmann.com 253) clearly applies to the facts of the case at hand and respectfully following the full bench decision of jurisdictional High Court, the notice issued under section 148 is held to be defective." 9. After having gone through the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Veda Real Estate (supra), we find that the facts of the present case are similar with the above mentioned case therefore while following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom), which has also been consistently followed by the same court in the case of Capital G LP Vs. ACIT, Abhin Anil Kumar Shah Vs. ITO, [2024] 468 ITR 350(Bom), and Ganesh Nivrutii Jagatap Vs. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 168 (Bom), thereby fortifying the principle that the faceless assessment regime under section 151A is not a matter of administrative convenience but jurisdictional imperative. The High Court in these decisions has unambiguously held that once jurisdiction is statutorily vested in the faceless AO, any notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO is coram non judice and consequently void ab initio and resultantly the impugned reopening proceedings so initiated and the impugned reassessment order passed thereafter also stands quashed. Moreover, in the absence of any contrary authority or distinguishing factual material, we are bound to follow the consistent line of judicial precedents emanating from the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly and respectfully while following the principles of judicial discipline and consistence, we therefore direct the AO to verify from the records and in case it is found that JAO had issued reassessment notice u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) then in that eventuality the AO is direct to follow the decision of With these Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra). directions we restore the matter back to the file of AO. order accordingly therefore this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. 10. Since we have restore the mater back to the file of AO for verification therefore there is no need to adjudicate other grounds at this stage raised by the assessee as the decision of the additional ground would have bearing on the other grounds raised by the assessee as well. Hence other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open. 11. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed statistical purposes.” 5. We further observe that, pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the AO vide order dated 30.03.2026, following Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), treated the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment as invalid and revised the total income of the Assessee accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.