PERRUMAL ALAGESAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), SALEM, SALEM

At the outset, the Ld.AR for the assessee drawing our attention to Ground No.3, wherein assessee is noted to have raised several legal issue (refer written submissions dated 06.09.2025) wherein the assessee inter alia has challenged the validity of the reopening notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as required to be done by the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. The Ld. AR for the assessee referred to notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 11.04.2022 and order under Clause (d) of section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) dated 08.04.2022 and pointed out that the notice u/s.148 has been issued by Gurusamy Vasuki, ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem, and similarly, the order under Clause (d) to Section 148 of the Act has been passed by the same Officer, ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem. He further referred to CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 which formulated a Scheme called “the e-assessment of income assessment scheme, 2022”. The Ld.DR relied upon the impugned order and further, pleaded that CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is not applicable in the present case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions perused the appeal papers and case laws cited by the assessee. We find that the CBDT issued a Notification dated 29.03.2022 formulating “the e-assessment of income assessment Scheme, 2022”. The Scheme provides that (a) the assessment/re-assessment are re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) Perumal Alagesan :: 3 ::

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. 4. 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. 5. Counsels for assessees are ad idem that the law as laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) will apply. Learned Additional Solicitor-General, however, submits that the Revenue does not accept the law as laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra); and that there is a special leave petition filed against the order and judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) and the same is expected to be taken up after the Supreme Court reopens. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 4. 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 the Perumal Alagesan :: 5 ::