MEENAKSHI ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION & RESEARCH (MAHER),CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 3, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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 both the parties, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. (supra) 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 I.T.A. No.2323/Chny/25 3 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.

The assessee raised following additional grounds, which are reproduced herein below: 1. That the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act dated 15.03.2022, by the Income Tax Officer, Non-corporate Ward 19(6), Chennai (“JAO”), is bad in law, thereby rendering the impugned assessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 of the Act invalid, inasmuch as the JAO failed to afford the appellant the mandatory minimum period of seven days to submit a response to the said show cause notice, as required under the provisions of the Act.

With prejudice to the above ground, that the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.03.2022 by the JAO, without due consideration of the submissions made by the appellant in response to the show cause notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, is bad in law, and therefore, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act as well as the consequent assessment order framed u/s 147 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside.

Without prejudice to the above grounds, that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2022, by the JAO, is in contravention of the Faceless Assessment Scheme notified by the Central Government on 29.03.2022 pursuant to section 151A of the Act, hence the same is invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 of the Act is null and void in the eyes of law.

The ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued by the Juri iction Assessing Officer under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 15.03.2022 placed at pages 1 & 2 of the paper book and in compliance to the above notice, the assessee uploaded its response vide e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgement on 26.03.2022. The ld. AR further drew our

The ld. DR Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT supported the order passed the Assessing Officer.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 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 Juri ictional 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 (supra), 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 I.T.A. No.2323/Chny/25 5 order and notice under section 148A(d)/148 of the Act issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, but, however, liberty was given to the 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 juri iction 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 24th October, 2025 at Chennai. (M. BALAGANESH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 24.10.2025