SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं

ी अिमताभ शुा, लेखा सद के सम

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 1545, 1546 & 1549/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20

M/s. Southern Agrifurane-
Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
MGM Centre No.1,
9th Cross Street,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. v.
The DCIT,
Central Circle-2(2),
Chennai.

[PAN: AAGCS 9705 F]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

( यथ/Respondent)

आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 1611 & 1612/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19
The DCIT,
Central Circle-2(2),
Chennai.

v.
M/s. Southern Agrifurane –
Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
MGM Centre No.1,
9th Cross Street,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. [PAN: AAGCS 9705 F]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)

( यथ/Respondent)

Assessee by :
Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Department by :
Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Mr. Bipin, CIT
सुनवाईक तार ख/Date of Hearing
:
08.10.2025
घोषणाक तार ख /Date of Pronouncement
:
21.11.2025

PER ABY T. VARKEY These cross-appea against the order of the (hereinafter referred to 29.03.2025 for the Ass 2017-18 to 2019-20. 2. At the outset, th grounds of appeal pref issue challenging the Officer (hereinafter refe 1961 (hereinafter referr bad in law and hence co Assessing Officer also is 3. According to the invalid and bad in law b (herein after 'JAO') whi the Act read with the 2022 for assessment, r ITA Nos.1545, 1546 (AYs 2 ITA Nos.1611 (AYs 2 M/s. Southern Agrifurane :: 2 ::

आदेश / O R D E R
Y, JM:
als preferred by the assessee and th e Learned Commissioner of Income as 'Ld.CIT(A)'), Chennai, all dated sessment Years (hereinafter referre he Ld.AR of the assessee drew ou ferred by it wherein assessee has notice(s) issued by the Juri icti erred to as 'JAO') u/s.148 of the In red to as 'the Act ') for AYs 2017-18
onsequent passing of the assessme s null in the eyes of law.
Ld.AR, the impugned notice(s) issu being issued by the Juri ictional As ich is not in accordance with Sectio
Faceless Scheme notified by CBDT reassessment or re-computation u/

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
he Revenue are Tax (Appeals), d 20.03.2025 &
ed to as 'AYs') ur attention to raised a legal onal Assessing ncome Tax Act,
8 to 2019-20 as nt order by the ued u/s.148 are ssessing Officer on 151/151A of T on 29 March
/s.147/issuance of notice u/s.148 of th show cause notice or pa issuance of notice unde
Ld. AR, in exercise of th had issued a notificatio each House of Parliam
Assessment of Income
'the Scheme') which pr re-computation u/s.147
of the Act shall be thro management strategy f
148 of the Act for issu extent provided in Sec assessment or reasse
Therefore, according to been issued by JAO and the provisions of the A which vitiates the reope attention to the recent d of Dadha Pharma
35385/2024) has held
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 3 ::

e Act or for conducting of inquiry assing of order u/s.148A of the Act er section 151 of the Act. Further, a he powers conferred u/s.151A of the n dated 29.03.2022 [after laying th ment] and formulated a Scheme
Escaping Assessment Scheme, 202
rovided that (a) the assessment, re
7 of the Act and (b) the issuance of ough automated allocation, in accor formulated by the Board as referre uance of notice and in a faceless m ction 144B of the Act with refere essment of total income or loss
Ld. AR, since the impugned notice( d not by the NFAC, there is per-se c
6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
or issuance of or sanction for ccording to the e Act, the CBDT he same before called "the e-
22"(herein after eassessment or f notice u/s.148
dance with risk ed to in Section manner, to the nce to making s of assessee.
(s) u/s 148 has ontravention of of Rule of Law, arly invited our ourt in the case e (W.P. No.
rch assessment proceedings / Central C can be initiated only by Juri ictional Assessing the Bombay High Court
DCIT (167 taxmann.c legal issue raised by the by other Hon'ble Karn
Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs
4. Per contra, the Ld notice u/s.148 of the A got concurrent juri i submitted that there w further contended that, and therefore these ma made u/s.151A of the A raised by the assessee the Hon’ble Calcutta Hig v. Union of India (15
Court in the case of T.K
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 4 ::

Circle charge, the proceedings u/s y the Faceless Assessing Officer (FA
Officer (JAO) by following the law in the case of Bmc Software Ind com 39). The Ld. AR further pointe e assessee has also been answered ataka High Court in the case of s DCIT (178 taxmann.com 491).
d. CIT DR supported the action of t
Act and submitted that both the NFA ction and therefore, notice is v was no prejudice caused to the the present case pertains to the c tters would fall outside the purview
Act. She thus urged that this legal ought to be rejected and relied on t gh Court in the case of Triton Ove
56 Taxmann.com 318) and Hon
K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO ( 469

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
148 of the Act
AC & JAO have valid and also assessee. She central charges, w of the scheme plea now being the decisions of rseas (P) Ltd.
’ble Delhi High
9 ITR 657).

arties. It is observed that, this ident nd adjudicated in favour of the as s Tribunal in the case of Jayarama
142/Chny/2025) wherein this Tri he Hon’ble Bombay High Court in th
Ltd (supra) held that even the es to central charges cannot be exc
DT dated 29.03.2022 and therefor u/s.148 of the Act was held to be b s Tribunal which is found to be squa esent case as well, is as under:- inder, the Ld.AR for assessee submitt he Ld.DR, since the present case falls entral Circle, the scheme made u/s.151 of onger re-integra and brought to our notice was raised before the Hon'ble Bombay H
C Software India Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 9 (Bom.) wherein the same contention w the Hon'ble High Court has repelled t a 9 infra ".............that the Revenue's co ase pertains to the central charges, it would cannot be accepted and it would be re rit petition is accordingly allowed....." by sent case, it is apparent that the respond mplied with the Scheme notified by ursuant to Section 151A(2) of the Act. The ed in Parliament and is in the character of hich governs the conduct of proceedings u

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
tical legal issue ssessee by the an Rudrasekar bunal following he case of BMC e reopening of cluded from the e the action of bad in law. The arely applicable ted that the s under the f the Act will that the very
High Court in n [2024] 167
was raised at he same by ntention that d be required quired to be y holding as dent Revenue the Central e Scheme has f subordinate under Section 148A as well declaration of Assessee insof sustainable a proceedings ha
6. Learned co initiated under view of the jud petitioner-Asse of this Court in of Income Tax circumstances, provisions of S the responden the central ch dated March section 119 o
2021, passed that this case under Section charge, would
Heraware.
7. Learned cou the decision o
Commissioner the Court cons
Government u considering th notified in para steps taken by as also an ord within the am matter, on bot
Hexaware as a Properties, the 8. In a decisio v. Income Tax
3 ("Abhn Anilk on behalf of t central charge
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 6 ::

as Section 148 of the Act. In view of the law in Hexaware, the grievance of th far as it relates to an invalid issuance o nd consequently, the very manner in ave been initiated, vitiates the proceedings unsel for both the parties agree that the r Section 148 of the Act would not be s dgment rendered in Hexaware. Learned co essee has also drawn our attention to a re n Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy C x, Circle-4(3) (1), Mumbai & Ors. 1, where
, this Court has allowed the petition con
Section 151A of the Act. However, learned nts would submit that as the present cas harges, the same would stand covered b
31, 2021 passed under section 144B(2
f the Act, and the further order dated S under these sections. Consequently, the would fall outside the purview of the s
151A of the Act, which, but for being unde otherwise be covered by the decision of unsel for the petitioner has also drawn our of this Court in Kairos Properties Pvt. Ltd.
of Income-tax and Ors. 2 ("Kairos Proper sidered the effect of scheme as notified by nder the notification dated 29 March, 2022
he relevant provisions, has held that this agraph 3 of the notification would take wit y the Revenue in issuing notice under sec er passed under Section 148A(d), so as to mbit of Section 151A of the Act. In this th applicability of the law as laid down by also considering the observations of this Co e petition would be required to be allowed.
on rendered by us in the case of Abhin An x Officer, International Tax, Ward Circle 4( kumar Shah') in the context of the objectio the revenue that the petitioner's case pe s and hence impugned notice issued under 6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
f the explicit he petitioner- of a notice is n which the .
e proceedings sustainable in ounsel for the ecent decision
Commissioner eby in similar nsidering the d counsel for e pertains to by the order
2) read with September 6, contention is cheme made er the central this Court in r attention to . v. Assistant rties'), where y the Central
2. The Court, s scheme as thin its ambit ction 148A(b) o be included view of the this Court in ourt in Kairos ilkumar Shah
2) (1) & Ors.
ons as raised ertains to the r Section 148

of the Act w provisions of S
Scheme as not dated 29 Marc of the said pr urged by the r charges. The C
"12. Having
Mistry, the objection of when we fir deeper scru that the ca
March, 202
the Act prov internationa
Act is conce position in l
13. Such co reason. Firs section (2)
September, respect of "
the conten hereinabove under notifi faceless me
Section 148
dated 31 M explicit so a scheme as violence to March, 202
expressly p purview of March, 202
also not ap
29 March, 2
that the C provided for 2021 so as ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 7 ::

would stand excluded from the applica
Section 144B read with Section 151A of the tified by the Central Government under th ch, 2022, we have considered the issue of rovisions in respect of these exceptions s revenue, namely, central charges and inte
Court in the said case made the following o g heard the learned counsel for the petitio learned amicus, it is clear to us that f Ms. Goel at the first blush appeared to b rst heard the matter on earlier occasion, h utiny, such objection needs to fail. Ms Goel ategory of cases as notified under order(
1 and 6 September, 2021 issued under se viding for exclusion of cases assigned to th al charges from the applicability of Section erned, certainly cannot be accepted to be aw.
ontention of Ms Goel needs to fail for mo stly, the order dated 31 March, 2021 issue
) of Section 144B of I.T Act and ord
2021 issued under section 119 of the Act
"assessment orders to be passed, as clear t of both such orders, which we hav e; Secondly, the scheme notified under cation dated 29 March, 2022 applying the echanism to the proceedings under Sectio
8 is neither subject to the applicability of th
March, 2021 read with 6 September, 20
as to include the applicability of the said o notified under section 151A; Thirdly, it wo o the language of the notification/schem
22 to read into such notification what h rovided for and/or something which is kep the said notification, namely, the orde
1 and 6 September, 2021. It would be un propriate for the Court to read into the s
2022, something which is not included. It ca entral Government was not aware as t r in the orders dated 31 March, 2021 and 6
to not include the same under the sche

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
bility of the e Act and the he notification f applicability sought to be ernational tax bservations:- oner and Mr.
although the be attractive, however on a l's contention
(s) dated 31
ection 119 of e central and n 144B of the e the correct ore than one ed under sub- der dated 6
apply only in rly seen from ve extracted section 151A procedure of on 148A and he prior order
021 nor is it orders to the ould be doing me dated 29
has not been pt outside the ers dated 31
ncalled for as scheme dated annot be said to what was 6 September, me dated 29

March, 202
nonetheless applicability
2021. In f mandate of 14. Thus, a as containe applicability
2021 would issued by th provisions provided fo independen as rightly po the other p
Governmen issuance of enquiry by section 148
of achieving by eliminat optimizing u and functio assessment of notice w and (c) of s
15. Thus, o the scheme the observa decision in C
16. In the a to the dec
Telangana
Commission
SCC OnLine view taken decision tak consideratio namely, wh of the Act i
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 8 ::

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
at the Court ch, 2022 the 6 September, trary to the hereunder.
o the scheme h 2022, the 6 September, such scheme thing into the tself has not below it stand
022. Further, not subject to at the Central on 147 or for ucting a prior g order under with an object lity inter alia ax authority, mies of scale team based e or sanction uses (a), (b) nds, read with opinion that nd 11 of our tion our attention gh Court of a v. Deputy
& Ors. (2024
n fortifies the mit that such had fallen for of Telangana, r section 148
n charges are exempted t elaborate ju section 151
the scheme dated 29 M or reassess selection of mode.
18. The res
Court not o the Divisio
Venkataram that in res charges, th
148 of the A applying the provisions
Central Gov accordingly the present provisions a 9. In this view the revenue th it would be req be required to terms of pray
Court be pleas
Certiorari or a Article 226 an the records of and validity th
Notice dated dated 30 Marc
2024 (Echibit "
6. In the light of Ld AR, nothing pertained to cen notified by CBDT legal issue raised u/s 148 of the Ac
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 9 ::

to follow the procedure of faceless procee udgment, their Lordships considering the A as also the Notification dated 6 Septemb e notified by the Central Government unde arch, 2022 have held that only the actua sment would be laid in a face to face mo f cases and issue of notices could be in sult of the above discussion is to the eff only in Hexaware and thereafter in Capital on Bench of the High Court of Telan mana Reddy Patloola (supra), to have cons spect of central charges and internatio he proceedings under Section 148A read
Act would be required to be held in a face e provisions of section 144B and as effect of section 151A read with scheme not vernment vide a Notification dated 29 Marc reject the contentions as urged by the t case would fall outside the applicability and the scheme. "
w of the matter, learned counsel has urged hat as the present case pertains to the cen quired to be excluded, cannot be accepted be rejected. The writ petition is according er clause (a) which reads thus "(a) that sed to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in any other appropriate writ, order or dir d/or Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind f the Petitioner's case and after examining hereof quash and set aside the Impugned
26 February 2024 (Echibit 'Q') the Imp ch 2024 (Exhibit "U"), Impugned Notice da
"V") and the Impugned Approval (Exhibit "W the judgment of Hon'ble High Court supra, turns on the fact that the present case/
tral charge and therefore excluded from on 29.03.2022 [supra]. Hence, prayed for d before us against notice issued on 07.04. ct.

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
edings. In an provisions of ber, 2021 and er Notification l assessment ode while the the faceless fect that this GLP but also ngana in Sri sistently held onal taxation with Section eless manner, ted under the tified by the ch, 2022. We revenue that y of the said d on behalf of ntral charges, and it would gly allowed in this Hon'ble the nature of rection under dia calling for g the legality
Show Cause ugned Order ted 30 March
W")."
, according to /assessment, the scheme r allowing the .2022 by JAO

d both the parties and perused the materia ssee is an individual, whose case was reop essing Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'J basis of information that during the relev e [Shri Jayaraman Rudrasekar] had depos one or more savings bank account. Th reopened by the AO by issuance of notic
.04.2022. In response of which, the asses on 22.04.2022 declaring total income of urn filed by the assessee on 27.10.2018 d
,500/-]. And thereafter, the AO is noted to nt order on 29.03.2023 making an s, assessed income to the tune of ₹22,64,0
ncome of ₹13,40,500/- On appeal, the Ld allow the appeal by allowing relief of ₹2 l was confirmed.
e assessee is before us and has raised th notice issued by the JAO dated 07.04.2
ct as bad in law on the strength of Hon'ble other judicial precedents cited supra; and i the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 07.0
Shri Ajay Kumar Chowdary, Ward-3,
O/DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai, Shri noted to have framed the re-assessme making certain additions.
s contention is that juri ictional notice is r 29.03.2022 in order to reopen the asses idn't adhere to the provisions of Section 1
notified by the CBDT [Faceless Scheme ra)] which legal issue, which we will deal fir on this legal issue there are divergent view ble High Courts. However, it is noted that ictional High Court i.e. Madras High Co tudio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed sessee, by concurring with the Hon'ble B e of Hexaware Technologies (supra). And r view in favour of assessee has been take urt, the Hon'ble Telangana High Court and a High Court as cited by Ld AR (supra). E rought to our notice that on the legal issue

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
l available on pened by the JAO') u/s.147
ant AY 2018- sited cash of ereafter, the ce u/s.148 of ssee filed RoI
₹13,40,500/- eclaring total o have passed addition of 000/- in place d.CIT(A) was akhs and the he legal issue
2022 passed
Juri ictional n this regard
04.2022 was Vellore. And Satyamurthi ent order on ssued by the ssment is bad
51 of the Act notified from rst.
ws expressed on this issue ourt (Division their view in Bombay High d further it is en by Hon'ble d the Hon'ble
Even though, e, the Hon'ble

Delhi High Court of Madras High C of the Revenue;
Bench) in Mark S
Bench and has t
Technologies Ltd assessee is no decision in favour
11. The Hon'bl
Technologies Ltd decision rendered
Revenue, but co
Court in the case in [2023] 156 ta the provisions of 29.03.2022, notic invalid and bad
Hon'ble Telangan
Bombay High Co case of Ram N taxmann.com 478
case of Jatinder taxmann.com 11
the Hon'ble juri Mark Studio Ind
Revenue, was re
24.06.2025 by ho
“This appeal im
2. The learned the ground th
Assessment O issued under S
3. Ms.Vardhin matters, held,
Hexaware Tech
Tax', that notic has to be is Juri ictional A ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 11 ::

& Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble
Court in Mark Studio India (P.) supra has h but since the Hon'ble juri ictional High Co tudio India (P.) (supra) has reversed the H aken view in favour of assessee as held
. (Bom), according to us, the legal issue r longer res-integra and we are bound t r of the assessee on the legal issue raised b e Bombay High Court in the case o
., (supra) is noted to have has even de d by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in f ncurred with the view of the Hon'ble Tel of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola v. D axmann.com 178 (Telangana) and held th
Sec.151A of the Act read with Faceless S ces issued by the JAO u/s.148A(d)/148 of in law. We further note that aforesaid de a High Court has been followed not only by urt, but also by the Hon'ble Gauhati High
Narayan Sah v. Union of India repor
8, and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High r Singh Bhangu v. Union of India repo
5 and other cited cases (supra). And as n dictional High Court (Single Bench) order i ia (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, held eversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by olding as under:
mpugns an order passed by the learned Sin d Single Judge was pleased to dismiss th at even if the notice has been issued by fficer and not Faceless Assessment Office
Section 148A/148 of the Income Tax Act wi ni Karthik submitted that this Court ha following the judgment of the Bombay H hnologies Limited v. Assistant Commission ce that has to be issued by Faceless Assess ssued Faceless Assessment Office and Assessment Officer, the same is not valid.

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Single Bench held in favour ourt (Division
Hon'ble Single in Hexaware raised by the to follow the before us.
of Hexaware ealt with the favour of the langana High
DCIT reported at in view of Scheme dated f the Act was ecision of the y the Hon'ble
Court in the rted in 163
h Court in the orted in 165
noted (supra) n the case of in favour of y order dated ngle Judge.
e petition on Juri ictional er, the notice ll be valid.
as, in many
High Court in ner of Income sment Officer if issued by 4. Ms.Premala law as propose
Court may qua the Revenue to with the order
Technologies (
5. Keeping op above, the im aside. The app
Consequently,
12. In the light o hand, the JAO
24.03.2022 follow and followed by notices have be Central Governm making it mandat well as 148 of the especially issued bad in law, since
'Rule of Law'; wh of assessment fo
07.04.2022 u/s.1
in law and theref null in eyes of law is held in favour o into the merits of 13. Before partin that the present would stand cove r.w.s.119 of the under these sect would fall outside and therefore, it Bombay High Cou we note that suc
Hon'ble High Cou
Ltd.(supra), whe rendered in (i) A Circle-4(2)(1) &
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 12 ::

tha, who takes notice for the Revenue, st ed by Ms.Vardini Karthick is correct and t ash and set aside the notices, but keep op o re-ignite the notices in case the Apex Co r and judgment of the Bombay High Court supra).
pen the Revenue's rights and contention pugned notices dated 15.04.2024 are qua peal is disposed of. There shall be no orde the interim application is closed.”
of the aforesaid discussion, we find that in had issued notice u/s.148A(b) of the wed by order u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated y notice u/s.148 dated 07.04.2022 whic een issued despite faceless scheme was ent on 29.03.2022 pursuant to section 151
tory for the issuance of notice u/s.148A(b) e Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impu u/s.148 dated 31.03.2022 is found to be e it has been issued contrary to law and i hich impugned action of the JAO vitiates t or AY 2018-19 by issuance of impugned
148 of the Act and is therefore held to be ill fore, assessment order dated 29.03.2023
w; and the assessee succeeds, on the lega of the assessee and therefore, we are inclin f the addition made by the NFAC.
g, we note that in this case, the Ld.DR ha case pertains to the central charges and ered by the order dated 31.03.2021 passed
Act and further by order dated 06.09. tions. Consequently, according to the Ld.D e the purview of the scheme made u/s.15
t won't be covered by the decision of urt in the case of Hexaware Technologies L ch a contention was raised by the Revenu urt of Bombay in the case of BMC Softwa erein their Lordship's after considering t
Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. ITO, Internationa
Ors., & (ii) Venkataramana Reddy Patlo

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
tates that the herefore, the pen liberty of urt interferes in Hexaware ns, as noted shed and set r as to costs.
n the case in e Act dated d 31.03.2022
ch impugned s notified by 1A of the Act,
), 148A(d) as ugned notices e invalid and s against the he reopening notice dated legal and bad is held to be al issue which ned not to go s pointed out therefore, it d u/s.144B(2)
2021 passed
DR, this case
1A of the Act the Hon'ble
Ltd. However, ue before the are India (P) the decisions al Tax Ward, oola v. DCIT,

Circle-1(1), Hyde to repel the sam
Revenue's conten charges, it would would be requir allowed....." In th the case of BMC contention of the central charges, notified by CBD therefore, the sa action of the JAO in law and invali
29.03.2023 is nu
6. We find that the stands endorsed by the Court in their decision
DCIT, CC (supra) whe the JAO of the Centra mandatory that FAO t portion of the judgment
“2. Learned Single held that it does n the notice and it Assessment Office
21.04.2025 in WP N the Bombay Hig
Commissioner of In to issue notice and 3. Learned Single J
Chief Justice for co is therefore, this m
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 13 ::

erabad & Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine TS 1792]
me by inter alia observing at para 9 "......
ntion that as the present case pertains to be required to be excluded, cannot be ac red to be rejected. The writ petition is he light of the Hon'ble High Court's decision
Software India (P) Ltd., we don't find any Ld.DR for the Revenue the present case pe it would be required to be excluded from T on 29.03.2022 (supra), cannot be a ame is rejected. Hence, we hold that th issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 07.04
id, therefore, the consequent assessment ll in the eyes of law and so, quashed.”
view expressed by the coordinate e Division Bench of the Hon’ble jur rendered in the case of Dadha Ph erein it is seen that the notice issu al Charge was set aside by holdin to issue the concerned notice(s).
t reads as under:-
Judge in order dated 20.12.2024 in WP Nos.2
not matter if the Juri ictional Assessing Office is not mandatory that it should be issued by er (FAO). Another learned Single Judge in No.22402 of 2024 and batch cases, followed wh h Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd ncome Tax1 ; and opined that it was mandato issuance of notice by JAO would make the notic
Judge thereafter directed the matter to be pla nstituting a Division Bench to consider the dive atter was listed before us today.

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
was pleased
.......that the o the central cepted and it s accordingly n rendered in y merit in the ertains to the m the scheme accepted and he impugned
4.2022 as bad t order dated
Bench (supra) i ictional High harma LLP vs ued u/s 148 by ng that it was . The relevant
25223 of 2024
Court.”
7. It is seen that, t
Court (supra) has been High Court in the case
(supra).
8. Respectfully follow the judgment of Hon’ble us, we hold that the im of the Act for AYs 2017
the notice(s) issued u/
annulled and hence all issuance of notice stand
ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 14 ::
IT3. 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)
Bombay) 3 [2024] 165 taxmann.com 760 (Bom tes that Special Leave Petitions are pendin
Software India (P) Ltd (supra), Hexaware Te airos Properties (P) Ltd (supra) and that the en up after the Supreme Court reopens.
aw as laid down in Hexaware Technologies Lt authored by one of us (Chief Justice), that it is he concerned notices and issuance thereof by valid.
Srinivas, in fairness, states that there is no st wn by Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) applies hat if the Apex Court reverses the judgment supra), parties will be governed by the decisio the above judgment of the Hon’bl n followed with approval by the Hon of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi K wing the above cited decisions (sup e Madras High Court (supra) which pugned action of the JAO issuing no 7-18 to 2019-20 as bad in law and s 148 of the Act for 2017-18 to 2
the consequential proceedings fro ds effaced.

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
as laid in BMC will apply. This s Properties (P)
) 2 [2024] 167
bay) g against the chnologies Ltd e petitions are td (supra), the mandatory for the JAO would tay. Therefore, s.
t of Hexaware on of the Apex e Madras High n'ble Karnataka umar v. DCIT pra) particularly is binding upon otice(s) u/s.148
invalid. Hence,
2019-20 stands m the stage of 9. In view of our a assessee in their appea now become academ infructuous. Needless appeals on the points o open.
10. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue

Order pronounced (अिमताभ शुा)
(AMITABH SHUK
लेखासद'य/ACCOUNTANT
चे नई/Chennai,
(दनांक/Dated: 21st Novem
TLN
आदेश क ितिल)प अ*े)षत/Co
1. अपीलाथ /Appellant
2. थ /Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chenn
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाड फाईल/GF

ITA Nos.1545, 1546
(AYs 2
ITA Nos.1611
(AYs 2
M/s. Southern Agrifurane
:: 15 ::

above findings, all other grounds l along with the appeals filed by the ic in nature and is therefore to say, all other questions raised of law and merits of the addition(s) appeals filed by the assessee is a are dismissed.
d on the 21st day of November, 202

KLA)
T MEMBER (एबी टी.
(ABY T. VA
याियकसद'य/JUDI mber, 2025. opy to:
nai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

6 & 1549/Chny/2025
2017-18 to 2019-20)
&
& 1612 /Chny/2025
2017-18 & 2018-19) e Industries Pvt. Ltd.
raised by the e Revenue have dismissed as d in the cross
) raised are left allowed and the 25, in Chennai.
-
वक
)
ARKEY)
ICIAL MEMBER