INCOME TAX OFFICER, VELLORE vs. SELVAM KUPPUSAMY, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2845/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 April 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had set aside the High Court judgments and allowed taxpayers to challenge retrospective amendments. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order, based on those now-overturned decisions, could not survive.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order quashing a notice issued under Section 148. The CIT(A) had relied on High Court decisions holding that such notices could not be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of faceless assessment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of faceless assessment, considering subsequent Supreme Court developments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 04.02.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2019–20. The main grievance of the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) quashing the notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as not valid.

ITA No.2845 /Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Selvam Kuppusamy. :: 2 :: 2. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken note that the JAO has issued notice of reopening under Section 148 of the Income- tax Act (herein after ‘the Act’) on 13.03.2023, which, according to the JAO, ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit from 29.03.2022, by relying on the decisions of various High Courts including the Telangana High Court in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT (Int. Taxn.), WP No. 23573/2024 (Telangana HC); a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technology Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bombay); a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhang vs. Union of India and others (CWP-15745-2024); and a Single Judge Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah vs. Union of India, (2024) 163 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati), wherein it has been held that notice under Section 148 of the Act cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after introduction of the concept of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B of the 1961 Act with effect from 29.03.2022.

3.

However, we note that the Revenue had preferred appeals before the Hon’ble Apex Court [against the various High Courts’ decisions (supra) quashing the notices issued under Section 148 by the JAO on or after 29.03.2022 as invalid], and the Hon’ble Apex Court is noted to have taken note of the amendment brought in retrospectively by the Finance

ITA No.2845 /Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Selvam Kuppusamy. :: 3 :: Act, 2026, validating the issue of notice by JAO, and vide order dated 10.04.2026, set aside the above cited High Court judgments (supra) holding that the JAO could not have issued notice under Section 148 on or after 29.03.2022, basis which the Ld CIT(A) has allowed the legal issue raised by the assessee in the present case. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the taxpayers to file writ petitions in their respective High Courts to challenge the validity of the retrospective amendments made by the Finance Act, 2026. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is noted to have directed the Hon’ble High Courts to decide the petitions filed before July 31, 2026, and was pleased to stay the assessments.

4.

In the light of the aforesaid developments, it is noted that the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A), based on various High Court decisions referred (supra), cannot survive, since they have been set aside by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Meaning thereby that when the foundation on the basis of which the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee has been removed, we have to set it aside.

5.

Hence, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and note that the Ld CIT(A) didn’t decide the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Hence we restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to await the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the legal issue in the light of the

ITA No.2845 /Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20) Selvam Kuppusamy. :: 4 :: retrospective amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2026, whether the notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 on or after 29.03.2022 is valid, and thereafter to decide the legal issue raised in this regard by the assessee. And in the event assessee choose not to press this legal issue, the Ld CIT(A) is at liberty to decide other grounds on its own merits after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.

6.

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

Order pronounced on the 28th day of April, 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (एबी टी. वर्की) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (ABY T. VARKEY) न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनाांक/Dated: 28th April, 2026. KB आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. विभागीयप्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →