G. SELVARANI,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TUTICORIN

ITA 1034/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 September 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee was non-compliant before the AO, and the evidence furnished required reconsideration and examination by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee were left open as the issue of JAO/FAO is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. On merits, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was sustained without any change. The Ld. CIT(A) had restored the matter to the AO for consideration of the assessee's submissions, which the Tribunal found appropriate given the non-compliance and the need for examination of evidence. The Tribunal did not decide the legality of the notice issuance or the procedural lapse of not issuing a Section 143(2) notice, leaving these legal grounds open.

What were the facts?

The assessee, G. Selvarani, is appealing against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee was a non-filer and had made cash deposits of Rs. 1,90,76,000/- in her bank account. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 28.02.2024. The assessee filed a belated return under Section 148 along with financials. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income at Rs. 8,09,164/- (8% of Rs. 1,01,14,552/-) due to non-compliance. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO for reconsideration of the assessee's submissions. The assessee, aggrieved by this, filed the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment for AY 2020-21 is illegal, void, and without jurisdiction, given that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO Ward 2 Tuticorin instead of the FAO, contrary to Notification No. S.O. 1466(E) dated 29-3-2022 (e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022)? The assessee argued that this action is against the binding nature of jurisdictional High Court decisions. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the reassessment is bad in law because the AO erred in not issuing a statutory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return under Section 148 on 29-1-2025? The assessee contended this procedural lapse renders the reassessment invalid. The revenue's contentions are not recorded. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant did not file an ITR, despite the appellant filing a return on 29-1-2025? The assessee argued that an ITR was indeed filed. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 139,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 10.08.2026Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER GAGAN GOYAL, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) / NFAC, (hereinafter referred as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi dated 16.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2020-21. GROUDS OF APPEAL

1.

1 Reopening of assessment for AY 2020-21 is illegal, void and without juri iction in as

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 →