INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. RAJAGOPALAN SASI, SOORANKUDI

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

These are two appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], both dated 15.12.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively.

ITA Nos. 1020-1021/Chny/2026 (AYs 2019-20 & 2020-21) ITO W-1 JAO Vs Rajagopalan Sasi :: 2 :: 2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

(2) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing question of law of the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, despite the provisions of Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act barred the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer after the expiry of one month from the date of service of the notice u/s.143(2) or completion of assessment, whichever is earlier.

(3) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the notice u/s. 148 issued on 04.04.2023 by the JAO is invalid notice without following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology in SLP Appeal (C) No(s).29304 of 2019 on May 1, 2023 [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC) wherein held that Section 124(3)(a) precludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does not do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 143(2).

(4) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dadha Pharma LLP Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle 1(4) in W.P. No.35385 of 2024 and W.M.P. No.38272 and 38276 of 2024 dated 24.06.2025 which followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Hexaware Technologies Limited (W.P.No.1778 of 2023 dated 03.05.2024), in quashing / setting aside the notice u/s.148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer as not valid, when the fact remains that the JAO, in compliance to the Finance Act, 2021, after following the due procedure u/s.148A, issued notice u/s.148 in the instant case.

(5) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in quashing the notice u/s.148, when the fact remains that as per Sec. 144B(1)(i) of the Act, the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected for the purposes of faceless assessment under this section to a specific assessment unit through an automated allocation system indicating that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) comes into play only when a case is "selected" and that the power of issue of notice u/s.148 is

ITA Nos. 1020-1021/Chny/2026 (AYs 2019-20 & 2020-21) ITO W-1 JAO Vs Rajagopalan Sasi :: 3 :: not within the ambit of the provisions and rests with the non- NFAC officer viz. the JAO.

(6) The Ld.CIT(A) is right when the new faceless assessment procedure introduced with effect from 01.04.2021 is applicable only for completion of assessment / reassessment and all other works including conduct of proceedings u/s.148A & issuance of notice u/s.148 remains with the JAO.

(7) The Ld.CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice u/s.148, when the fact remains that as per Sec. 144B(1) (iii) of the Act, the assessee shall be served notice u/s.143(2) / 142(1) by the Faceless Assessment Centre (FAO), and in this FAO has not been given any power to issue notice u/s. 148, which power has been given only to JAO, as per Sec. 148, as substituted by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, whereby the Assessing Officer (JAO) shall serve on the assessee notice u/s.148, subject to the provisions of Sec. 148A of the Act, before making any assessment /re-assessment / re-computation u/s.147 of the Act.

(8) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in quashing the notice u/s.148, when the fact remains that as per the provisions of Sec. 148 of the Act, before making the assessment or re-assessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act, after satisfying himself as per the provisions of Sec. 148A of the Act, that there is 'information' in his possession which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and that such 'information' to enable the Assessing Officer to ascertain that the income has escaped assessment, is available with the JAO only and not with the FAO.

(9) For these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing and it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

ITA Nos. 1020-1021/Chny/2026 (AYs 2019-20 & 2020-21) ITO W-1 JAO Vs Rajagopalan Sasi :: 4 :: (ITR) for the relevant assessment year (AY), despite depositing cash amounting to Rs.1,10,46,900/- in his bank account maintained with Axis Bank. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act), was issued to the appellant on 04.04.2023. However, in response to the said notice, the appellant did not file his return of income.Subsequently, statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued to the appellant. However, no response or compliance was made by the appellant to the said notices. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 133(6) of the Act to Axis Bank and obtained the statements of all three bank accounts maintained by the appellant with the said bank.On examination of the bank statements, the AO observed that the aggregate credits in all three bank accounts amounted to Rs.2,14,05,351/-. In the absence of any explanation or supporting evidence from the appellant regarding the nature and source of the credits, the AO completed the assessment proceedings by passing an order under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Act dated 02.01.2025, wherein the entire sum of Rs. 2,14,05,351/- was added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.Aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the appellant has preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who after following judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of TVS Credit Services Ltd. Vs DCIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1078 (Madras) dated 21.04.2025 quashed the order passed by the AO u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 02.01.2025. Now revenue is in appeal before us by way the captioned appeals.

ITA Nos. 1020-1021/Chny/2026 (AYs 2019-20 & 2020-21) ITO W-1 JAO Vs Rajagopalan Sasi :: 5 :: 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, we find that the appellant has raised a jurisdictional objection contending that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). It has been contended that, in terms of the Explanation inserted to section 151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification No. 18 of 2022 dated 29.03.2022, the jurisdiction to issue such notice vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT, [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1078 (Madras) dated 21.04.2025. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court held that issuance of notice under section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was contrary to and ultra vires CBDT Notification No. 18 of 2022. Consequently, the Hon'ble High Court held that the notices issued under sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 were null and void.

ITA Nos. 1020-1021/Chny/2026 (AYs 2019-20 & 2020-21) ITO W-1 JAO Vs Rajagopalan Sasi :: 6 :: 6. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of justice, the matter requires remand to the file of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for denovo disposal of appeal keeping in view of the Finance Act 2026. All the contentions raised by the appellant are left open for consideration before the ld.CIT(Appeal).

ITA No.1021/CHNY/2026: 8. Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeal is identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.1020/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2019-20 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present appeal of the assessee i.e. ITANo.1021/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2020-21 also. Accordingly, grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

SANDEEP Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2026.08.11 17:41:10 +05'30'

ITA Nos. 1020-1021/Chny/2026 (AYs 2019-20 & 2020-21) ITO W-1 JAO Vs Rajagopalan Sasi :: 7 :: चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 10th August 2026. SNDP, Sr. PS आदेश क� �त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF