MOHAMED IMRAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

The Juri ictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as “JAO”) has reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 09.03.2024. The Faceless Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred as “FAO”) has passed the order u/s. 147 of the Act assessing total income at Rs. 23,49,385/-. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the JAO vide notice dated 09.03.2024 u/s. 148 of the Act, which is in violation of section 151A of the Act and CBDT notification dated 29.03.2024 and therefore invalid. The Ld AR further argued that as the notice issued u/s 148 is without juri iction, the consequential assessment order is invalid and to be quashed. The Ld. AR, in support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT, WP No.22402 of 2024 & WMP No.13336 of 2023 (Mad.) and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Thangamuthu Balakrishnan vs. ITO in ITA No.719/Chny/2025 dated 22.09.2025 (Chennai-Trib.). Mohamed Imran

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO on 09.03.2024, while the assessment order was subsequently passed by the FAO on 17.03.2025. The Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), on identical facts, where the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 by JAO, has held as under:

Learned Single Judge thereafter directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a Division Bench to consider the divergent views. It is, therefore, all these matters were listed before us today.

We follow the law as laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the said judgment was authored by one of us (Chief Justice), that it is mandatory for the FAO to issue the concerned notices and issuance thereof by the JAO would make the notice invalid.

Counsels for assessees are ad idem that the law as laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) will apply. Learned Additional Mohamed Imran

Admittedly, learned Additional Solicitor-General, in fairness, states that there is no stay. Therefore, the law as laid down by Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) applies.

It is clarified that if the Apex Court reverses the judgment of Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), parties will be governed by the decision of the Apex Court.

Keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, including liberty to apply to this Court, in case the Revenue succeeds before the Apex Court, for revival of these petitions, the notices issued in these petitions are quashed and set aside.

In these petitions, apart from the issue of notices issued by JAO instead of FAO, all or many of the issues which were considered in Hexauxare Technologies Ltd (supra) are involved.

To the extent the issues raised in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) are not covered, those are kept open to be raised at the appropriate stage.

With the liberty as noted above, all petitions stand disposed of holding in favour of assessees. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications also stand disposed of.”

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble juri ictional High Court, we set aside the impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act and consequential orders thereof. However, in the light of the Para No.8 of the judgment of the juri ictional High Court, we also keep open of rights and contentions of parties including liberty to Mohamed Imran

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.