Loading judgment…

SIVARAJPANDI VASANTHA,THIRUPALAI, MADURAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI | BharatTax

SIVARAJPANDI VASANTHA,THIRUPALAI, MADURAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

ITA 2878/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 December 2025AY 2020-2021Bench: SHRI ABY T VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed a return of income and later a revised return. Subsequently, a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued for reassessment. The assessment was completed with an addition, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the Tribunal.

Held

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) as mandated by the e-assessment scheme, 2022. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were invalid.

Key Issues

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if not issued by the Faceless Assessment Officer as per the e-assessment scheme.

Sections Cited

147, 144B, 139, 57, 148, 151A, 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

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

For Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Hearing: 17.12.2025Pronounced: 29.12.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 09.09.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department dated 07.02.2025.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has filed her return of income on 08.01.2021 for A.Y.2020-21, declaring total income of Rs.20,56,090/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed by the :-2-: ITA. No:2878/Chny/2025 assessee u/s.139(5) of the Act on 31.03.2021, declaring total income of Rs.21,01,820/- and claimed deduction u/s.57 of the Act. Based on the information received by the department, the assessee has receive interest Rs.12,46,287/- under the head of income from other sources, out of which interest received at Rs.11,42,061/- on account of death compensation of her husband death, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2024 by the AO, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Madurai, after obtaining the prior approval of the competent authority. In response, the assessee submitted her reply along with supporting documents for consideration. On perusal of the reply and documents submitted by the assessee, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of NFAC, Delhi dated 07.11.2024 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.5,71,030/- by arriving total income of Rs.26,27,120/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the same was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in present appeal before us.

(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The :-6-: ITA. No:2878/Chny/2025 second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.