INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, VIZIANAGARAM vs. SANKARA RAO MEKALA, VIZIANAGARAM

ITA 471/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 September 2026AY 2020-219 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect involved, which was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was Rs.10,28,907/-, which is below the prescribed limit of Rs.60 lakhs for appeals to the ITAT. The Revenue did not dispute that the case did not fall under any exceptions provided in the circulars. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. As the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the Assessee's Cross Objection, which relied on the same circular for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, became infructuous and was also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's Cross Objection. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal and the Assessee filed a Cross Objection against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021. The Revenue's appeal challenged the quashing of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Revenue contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued in accordance with the Finance Act, 2021, and after due compliance with Section 148A. The Assessee's Cross Objection argued that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect. The total income computed by the Assessing Officer was Rs.39,22,777/-, with an addition of Rs.28,72,507/-, resulting in a total tax effect of Rs.10,28,907/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice issued thereunder by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were valid, considering the provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and Section 148A of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The Assessee argued that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was below the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 and Circular No. 05/2024. The Assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the reassessment proceedings and the notice under Section 148. It argued that the notice was issued strictly in accordance with the Finance Act, 2021, and after due compliance with Section 148A. The Revenue further argued that the JAO was vested with the authority to issue such notice under Sections 124(5), 120(1), and 102(2) of the Act, and that the Assessee failed to raise jurisdictional objections within the stipulated time as per Section 124(3). The Revenue also cited the pendency of SLPs before the Supreme Court in similar matters and an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside notices under Section 148A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 124(5),Section 120(1),Section 102(2),Section 124(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM ‘SMC’ BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G.

Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal by

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →