RAVIKUMAR SELVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2272/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 October 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were invalid. It was found that the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) alone has the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 and pass an assessment or reassessment order, and not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The reliance on the judgment in Hexaware Technologies v. ACIT was noted. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the revenue was quashed on this ground. As a result of the quashing of the reassessment proceedings, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee, including the clubbing of income under Section 64(1)(iv) and the nature of the land as agricultural land. The appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional issue, rendering the other issues academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ravikumar Selvi, has filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC, Delhi, dated February 18, 2026, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal challenges the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the merits of the assessment. The assessee contends that the reassessment notice was issued by the wrong authority and that the income from the purchase of land should have been clubbed with her husband's income under Section 64(1)(iv). The assessee also claims to be semi-literate and dependent on her authorized representative, and that the land purchased was agricultural land, erroneously described as 'punjai land' in the sale deed, making the sale exempt from taxation. The revenue is the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-22(4), Tambaram.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid, considering the jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) versus the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for issuing such notices and passing assessment/reassessment orders, as argued by the assessee relying on Hexaware Technologies v. ACIT, [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)? The revenue has not recorded arguments on this issue. 2. Whether the income from the purchase of the impugned land should be clubbed in the hands of the assessee's husband under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee is dependent on her husband and the source of funds for the purchase originated from his income, as argued by the assessee? The revenue has not recorded arguments on this issue. 3. Whether the impugned land is agricultural land and therefore the sale is exempt from taxation in the hands of the assessee, considering the alleged error in the sale deed describing it as 'punjai land' (dry land) instead of 'Nanjai land' (agricultural land), as evidenced by the Encumbrance Certificate and sale deeds of adjacent land purchased by the assessee's husband, as argued by the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 64(1)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONOURABLE GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 24.08.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

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 18.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred as the ‘AY’) 2019-20. GROUDS OF APPEAL

1.

The order passed by the Respondent is erroneous in law and opposed to the facts and

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 →