INCOME TAX OFFICER, ONGOLE vs. NAGESWARA RAO CHINTHALAPUD, ADDANKI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 33/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 July 2026AY 2019-207 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) order was correct based on the law then prevailing, the subsequent retrospective insertion of Section 147A validated the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2019-20. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an assessment. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal on the ground that reassessment proceedings were invalid due to notices/orders being issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of through the faceless mechanism.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless mechanism, and whether a subsequent retrospective amendment validated these proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 151A,Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 09/07/2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 33/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2019-20) ITO Vs. Shri Nageswara Rao ONGOLE Chinthalapud, ONGOLE PAN:ANJPC7012Q (Appellant) (Respondent) राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 09/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 11.11.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. When this appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment application or any other petition seeking postponement of hearing was filed. Therefore, considering the issue involved in the present appeal, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the submissions of the Learned

2 Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) and perusing the material available on record. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, had not filed any return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20 under section 139 of the Income-tax

3 Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”)under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act vide order dated 08.03.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹2,03,00,800/- . 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on a legal ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. DR submitted that the solitary issue arising out of the grounds raised by the Revenue relates to the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice issued under sections 148A(b) and 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of through the faceless mechanism. Inviting our attention to para no. 5 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.12452 of 2024, held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notices/orders were issued/passed by the JAO instead of through the faceless mechanism. The Ld. DR further submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, the Legislature has inserted section 147A in the Act by the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021. It was contended that the newly inserted

4 provision specifically clarifies that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, or in section 151A or any scheme framed thereunder, the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A of the Act shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any Assessment Unit referred to in section 144B(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. DR submitted that the Legislature has clarified that the JAO was always the competent authority for issuance of notice under sections 148A(b) and 148 and passing of order under section 148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is no longer sustainable in view of the retrospective amendment brought by insertion of section 147A of the Act and deserves to be set aside. 7. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 5 to 5.3 of the order of the Ld. CIT (A), which is to the following effect:

8.

On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the notice issued under sections 148A(b) and 148 and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were invalid since the same were by the JAO instead of through the faceless mechanism contemplated under section 151A of the Act. We also observe that on the date on which the impugned order was passed, i.e., 11.11.2025, the provisions of section 147A of the Act were not on the statute book. Therefore, on the date of passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A), there was no error in adopting the legal position then prevailing and deciding the issue accordingly. However, during the pendency of the present appeal, the Legislature inserted section 147A in the Act by the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, which is to the following effect:

6 “147A. Assessing Officer for purposes of sections 148 and 148A. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B.” 9. The aforesaid provision reads, in substance, that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or in section 151A or any scheme framed thereunder, the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A of the Act shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any Assessment Unit referred to in section 144B(3) of the Act. Thus, by way of the newly inserted provision, the Legislature has specifically clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under sections 148A(b) and 148 and passing of order under section 148A(d) of the Act, the competent authority with effect from 01.04.2021 was the JAO. The provision has also been given retrospective operation and has been made applicable notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court. In the present case, admittedly, the notice under section 148A(b), the order under section 148A(d), and the notice under section 148 were issued/passed after 01.04.2021 by the JAO. Therefore, in view of the retrospective clarification brought by insertion of section 147A of the Act, the action of the JAO stands duly validated and is squarely covered by the said provision.

10.

At the same time, we notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal solely on the aforesaid legal issue and has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

7 Since the legal basis on which the appeal was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) no longer survives in view of section 147A of the Act, the issues on merits require fresh adjudication by the first appellate authority. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions made by the Ld. AO and all issues are left open for adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A).

11.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 15th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Income Tax Officer 4th Floor, Roshan Plaza, 8th Line, Ramnagar, Ongole 2 Shri Nageswara Rao Chinthalapud, 9-5-83 Sanjiva Nagar, Addanki, Ongole 523201, A.P 3 Pr. CIT, GUNTUR 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order TUMMALACHARLA Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.07.15 12:25:02 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →