YERRAMANENI APARNA,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR, GUNTUR

आदेश / ORDER

PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM:

The above three appeals have inter-linked and inter-connected matters and hence, all the three appeals are clubbed and a common order is being passed.

:: 2 :: ITA Nos.213 to 2015/VIZ/2026 Veeramaneni Aparna

validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act“)

by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and ITA Nos.213 & 214/VIZ/2026

deals with levy of penalty u/s.270A & 271AAC(1) of the Act. Before going into

the merits of the case, it is observed that the assessee has challenged the issuance

of notice u/s.148 of the Act by the JAO stating that the notice u/s.148 of the Act

should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) after the

Faceless Assessement Scheme was introduced in the Income Tax Act. Since the

Officer who has issued the notice u/s.148 of the Act itself is invalid, the

consequent proceedings also become a nullity stated by the assessee in this case.

This matter was adjudicated by different High Courts in different manners.

Finally, the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of ACIT v. Anish Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. in Diary

No.32669/2025 order dated 10.04.2026 in which a large batch of matters of FAO

v. JAO jurisdiction for re-assessement notices was set aside and remitted to the

respective High Courts for fresh adjudication in the light of all subsequent

amendments by the legislature in the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court Bench consisting of Hon’ble CJI Surya Kant, Hon’ble J. BV Nagarathna

and Hon’ble J. Joymalya Bagchi have looked into the matters relating to

challenging the re-assessement proceedings u/s.147, 148, 148A where different

High Courts have taken divergent views whether the JAOs retained the

:: 3 :: ITA Nos.213 to 2015/VIZ/2026 Veeramaneni Aparna

jurisdiction to issue notice after the faceless re-assessement regime or whether

such power lies exclusively with Faceless Units. After noting that the Parliament

had intervened through the Finance Act, 2026, introducing and/or re-structuring

provisions such as 147A ignoring re-assessement in the faceless context, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court didn’t decide the FAO & JAO controversy on merits.

Instead, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the Hon’ble High Court

judgments under the challenge and remitted all such appeals to respective High

Courts to re-consider the following issues:

a) The effect of new provisions like 147A, constitutional validity of

retrospectivity of the amendments, the issue of jurisdiction of FAO & JAO

to issue and pursue the notices u/s.148/148A in the Faceless Regime. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the respective jurisdictional High

Courts to adjudicate on the validity of re-assessement proceedings in

pursuance of the impugned notices issued by IT Department. The

proceedings would remain stayed during pendency before the High Court,

subject to the conditions to respective High Courts may impose and High

Courts were requested to dispose of all these appeals preferably by

30.09.2026.

b) In other words, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the Hon’ble High Courts

to adjudicate all issues relating to:

:: 4 :: ITA Nos.213 to 2015/VIZ/2026 Veeramaneni Aparna

(i) validity scope and effect of Section 147A (ii) whether and to what extent Section 147A validly operates retrospectively from 01.04.2021 and (iii) whether retrospective amendment cures earlier “jurisdictional defect” in JAO issued notices

The High Courts have also been directed to consider all other re-

assessement related contentions [information suggesting escapement, Section

148A(b) process, limitation u/s.149, change of opinion, borrowed satisfaction,

sanctioned u/s.151 etc.] that the parties may urge, not just the JAO-FAO

jurisdiction point. The order clarifies that while the notices and proceedings are

not finally upheld, the assessee enjoy interim protection, and the Revenue can’t

carry the re-assessement to its conclusion until the High Courts decide the remand

Writs. The High Courts have been requested to dispose of the remanded JAO-

FAO re-assessement Writs within a specified time frame, i.e. by 30.09.2026.

After the decision of the High Courts, any party aggrieved by the fresh High Court

orders can file a further appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

these appeals on merits, the matter relating to challenging the validity notice

u/s.148 of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to

follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and pass an order afresh. With

these directions, the matter is remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and

:: 5 :: ITA Nos.213 to 2015/VIZ/2026 Veeramaneni Aparna

adjudicate the matter afresh after taking into consideration the decision of the

jurisdictional High Court.

& 271AAC(1) are consequential to the quantum addition in the main appeal, these

appeals are also sent back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based

on the quantum appeal being decided by him. All the three appeals are set aside

to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 17th day of July, 2026, in Hyderabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated: 17th July, 2026 TLN

:: 6 :: ITA Nos.213 to 2015/VIZ/2026 Veeramaneni Aparna

Copy to:

1 Veeramaneni Aparna, D.No.5-82-2, 4th Line, Pandaripuram, Guntur-522 002.

2 The ITO, Ward-2(1), Guntur.

3 THE PCIT / CIT, Guntur

4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH

5 GUARD FILE