DEVAKI TRADERS,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to the grounds of appeal raised before the us wherein the assessee is noted to have challenged the jurisdictions of the Assessing Officer(AO) who happen to be jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) of Ward-1, Puducherry. According to him, since the notice of reopening u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) was issued on 30.03.2022 by the JAO instead of Faceless Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred in short ‘FAO’), the reopening itself was vitiated being without jurisdiction, and consequent action of AO framing the assessment order on 21.02.2023 is non-est, bad in law. In this regard, the assessee has submitted that after 29.03.2022 only the FAO was competent to issue notice of reopening and not the JAO and hence, the notice issued by the JAO, in this case, on 30.03.2022 u/s 148 of the Act is wholly without the jurisdiction, hence bad in law and cited several decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Pandurang Patel Vs ITO, SLP(C) diary no.39689/2025. The Ld AR cited the following decision of various High Courts including that of 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), which decision was followed by the

Per contra, the Ld.DR for the Revenue opposing the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee submitted that the judicial precedents cited by the assessee are no more good law and brought to our notice that 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 Act, 2026, validating the issuance of notice by JAO, and the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 assessee pleads for allowing the legal

Hence, we find that the legal issue raised by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen the assessment as discussed supra has not been settled in light of the Parliament bringing retrospective amendment by the Finance Act 2026 validating the issuance of notice by the JAO on or after 29.03.2022. As noted, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the taxpayers to file writ petitions in their respective High Courts if they wish to challenge the validity/vires of the retrospective amendments made on this issue by the Finance Act, 2026 and outer time-limit has been given to High Courts to decide the same. Hence, as discussed, the issue regarding the validity of the notice issued by the JAO u/s 148 on or after 29.03.2022 is noted to be under ‘Lis- Pendens’ and further taking note that this legal issue has not been adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A), we are inclined to set aside the impugned

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.