SHANKAR SANGEETHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(4), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’
यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी जगदीश, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2185/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2015-16

Shankar Sangeetha,
No.A4, Gulmohar Apartment,
15B, South BOG Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017. v.
The ITO,
Non-Corporate Ward 22(4),
Tambaram,
Chennai – 600 045. [PAN: AOGPS 9935 L]

(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

(यथ/Respondent)

अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Ms. Sonali Khatod C.A.
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr. Nishanth Rao, JCIT
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
23.10.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
04.12.2025

आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of income tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’),
Chennai, dated 20.06.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY’) 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee refusing to condone the delay of more than ‘169’ days. However, he brought to our notice that anyway the assessment order passed by the AO is legally unsustainable, since the Shankar Sangeetha
:: 2 ::

AO didn’t had the juri iction to reopen the assessment on various legal issues viz., (i) as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC
2693], wherein the Revenue conceded that for the assessment year
2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020." [refer the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of IBIBO Group Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT in WP (C) 17639/2022 dated
13.12.2024; and the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to grounds of appeal preferred by it wherein assessee has raised inter-alia the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAO‘) u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘) dated 01.04.2022 as bad in law and hence consequent passing of the assessment order by the Assessing Officer also is null in the eyes of law.
3. According to the Ld.AR, the JAO issued notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act to the assessee on 21.03.2022 and then he passed order u/s.148A(d) of the Act on 01.04.2022. And thereafter issued the impugned notice u/s.148, which is assailed as invalid and bad in law being issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (herein after ‘JAO’) which is not in accordance with Sec. 151/151A of the Act read with the faceless Scheme
Shankar Sangeetha
:: 3 ::

notified by CBDT on 29 March 2022 for assessment, reassessment or re- computation u/s.147/issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act or for conducting of inquiry or issuance of show cause notice or passing of order u/s.148A of the Act or sanction for issuance of notice under section 151 of the Act. Further, according to the Ld AR, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s.151A of the Act, CBDT had issued a notification dated
29.03.2022 [after laying the same before each House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping
Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re- computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in Section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee.
Therefore, according to Ld AR, since the impugned notice u/s 148 dated
01.04.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed out that this legal issue raised by the assessee has been Shankar Sangeetha
:: 4 ::

answered in favor of the assessee by the juri ictional High Court & other
Hon’ble High Courts as cited below;-
Sl.No.
Date
Citation
1
24.06.2025
Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer - High Court of Madras [DB] - WA No. 781 OF 2025, order dated 24.06.2025
2
14.09.2023
Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-tax Officer High Court of Telangana - 156 taxmann.com 178
3
03.05.2024
Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax High Court of Bombay - 464 ITR 430
4
20.05.2024
Ram Narayan Sah v. Union of India - High Court of Gauhati 163
taxmann.com 478
5
02.07.2024
Sushila Sureshbabu Malge v. Income-tax Officer - High Court of Bombay - 468 ITR 624
6
19.07.2024
Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India High Court of Punjab &
Haryana - 466 ITR 474
7
24.07.2024
Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad and Others High Court of Telangana - 468 ITR 181 [W.P.No.13353, 16141 & 16877 of 2024]
8
29.07.2024
Jasjit Singh v. Union of India - High Court of Punjab & Haryana -
467 ITR 52
9
05.08.2024
Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-Thane &
Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581
10
05.08.2024
Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai
& Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168
11
29.08.2024
W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(Int Taxn), Hyderabad v.
Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024
dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)]
12
05.02.2025
Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust v. The ITO, Exemptions
Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA
Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024
13
24.04.2025
Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Telangana - 174 taxmann.com 1203

of Madras High Court in favor of the Revenue and cited the following orders:
•
Triton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India – Calcutta High Court – 156
Taxmann.com 318
•
T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO – Delhi High Court – 469 ITR 657
•
Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras 169
taxmann.com 542, order dated 20.12.2024
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee is an individual, whose case was reopened by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAO‘) u/s.147
of the Act on the basis of information that during the relevant AY 2015-
16, the assessee’s income had escaped assessment for the reason stated therein, the assessment was reopened by the AO by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 01.04.2022 and later, culminated in AO passing assessment order on 7.3.2024. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us and has raised the legal issue impugning the notice issued by the JAO dated 01.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act as bad in law on the strength of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court and other judicial precedents cited supra; and in this regard it is noted that the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 01.04.2022 was issued by JAO/Alfred
Kanagraj Frederick, Non Corp. Ward 22(4) TBM. And thereafter, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, is noted to have framed the assessment order on 07.03.2024 after making certain additions.
Shankar Sangeetha
:: 6 ::

assessee is no longer res-integra and we are bound to follow the decision in favour of the assessee on the legal issue raised before us.
9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware
Technologies Ltd., (supra) is noted to have even dealt with the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in favour of the Revenue, but concurred with the view of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola v. DCIT reported in [2023] 156
taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and held that in view of the provisions of Sec.151A of the Act read with Faceless Scheme dated 29.03.2022, notices issued by the JAO u/s.148A(d)/148 of the Act was invalid and bad in law.
We further note that aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Telangana High
Court has been followed not only by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, but also by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sah v.
Union of India reported in 163 taxmann.com 478, and the Hon’ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bhangu v.
Union of India reported in 165 taxmann.com 115 and other cited cases
(supra). And as noted (supra) the Hon’ble juri ictional High Court
(Single Bench) order in the case of Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income- tax Officer, held in favour of Revenue, was reversed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench by order dated 24.06.2025 by holding as under:
Shankar Sangeetha
:: 8 ::

This appeal impugns an order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition on the ground that even if the notice has been issued by Juri ictional Assessment Officer and not Faceless Assessment Officer, the notice issued under Section 148A/148 of the Income Tax Act will be valid.
3. Ms.Vardhini Karthik submitted that this Court has, in many matters, held, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies
Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax', that notice that has to be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer has to be issued Faceless Assessment
Office and if issued by Juri ictional Assessment Officer, the same is not valid.
4. Ms.Premalatha, who takes notice for the Revenue, states that the law as proposed by Ms.Vardini Karthick is correct and therefore, the Court may quash and set aside the notices, but keep open liberty of the Revenue to re-ignite the notices in case the Apex Court interferes with the order and judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies (supra).
5. Keeping open the Revenue's rights and contentions, as noted above, the impugned notices dated 15.04.2024 are quashed and set aside. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is closed.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that in the case in hand, the JAO had issued notice u/s.148 dated 01.04.2022 which impugned notice have been issued despite faceless scheme was notified by Central Government on 29.03.2022 pursuant to section 151A of the Act, making it mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s.148A(b), 148A(d) as well as 148 of the Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impugned notice especially issued u/s.148 dated 01.04.2022 is found to be invalid and bad in law, since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the ‘Rule of Law’; which impugned action of the JAO vitiates the reopening of assessment for AY 2015-16 by issuance of impugned notice dated
01.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act and is therefore held to be illegal and bad in law and therefore, assessment order dated 07.03.2024 is held to be null in eyes of law; and the assessee succeeds, on the legal issue which is Shankar Sangeetha
:: 9 ::

held in favour of the assessee and therefore, we are inclined not to go into the merits of the addition made by the NFAC.
11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on the 04th day of December, 2025, in Chennai. (जगदीश)
(JAGADISH)
लेखा सदय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक
)
(ABY T. VARKEY)
याियक सदय/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे ई/Chennai,
!दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2025. TLN

आदेश क ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.