Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee sought to raise an additional ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the reassessment notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer.
Held
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that legal grounds can be raised at any stage. It was found that the assessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the procedure established by the Hon'ble High Court.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are bad in law, violating the Faceless Assessment Scheme and established High Court precedent.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144B, 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition filed, but, however, filed an application seeking permission to file additional ground of appeal dated 13.10.2025, which was filed with ITAT Registry on 17.10.2025, wherein, the assessee raised following additional ground of appeal challenging assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Additional ground: That the reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Year 2020- 21 are bad in law and viod ab initio, as the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2024 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), contrary to the mandatory procedure under the Faceless Assessment Scheme and as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in its common order dated 24.06.2025 in WP Nos. 22402 of 2024 etc. batch, following Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom). It is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly admit the above additional ground and render justice.
Since the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature, we proceed to adjudicate the same, after hearing the ld. DR.
The ld. DR submits that the assessee having participated before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) did not raise the same before the said authorities. He argued that it requires examination of the facts and prayed to dismiss the said ground.
Having heard the ld. DR, we are of the considered opinion that the legal ground, which goes to the root of the case, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including this Tribunal in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. reported in 223 ITR 383 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the legal ground can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including this Tribunal. The ld. DR did not dispute the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and we find no new facts are required to be examined and therefore, we proceed to admit additional ground.
In this case, we note that the assessment order was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the assessment unit of NFAC. Further, we note that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. On perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. V. ITO in W.A. No. 781 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025, we note that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to hold that the assessment made by the assessment unit of NFAC is not valid if the order and notice under section 148A(d)/148 of the Act issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, but, however, liberty was given to the 4 Revenue to re-ignite the notice in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court interferes with the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V. ACIT 464 ITR 430 (Bombay). Accordingly, we hold that the assessment order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the assessment unit of NFAC is bad in law and it is quashed. The ld. AR prayed to keep open grounds of appeal filed along with Form 36 for the assessee in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court interferes with the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V. ACIT (supra). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on assumption jurisdiction raised by way of additional grounds 1 to 3 are allowed and grounds raised under Form 36 become academic in view of our decision in the additional grounds raised by the assessee.