T.C. 30 THOTHUKUDI PORT ALUVALAR CO-OP THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TUTUCORIN

The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has received interest other than interest on securities totalling to ₹.35,64,967/- in the previous relevant to the AY 2018-19, but, however, did not file return of income. Following due procedure, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26.04.2022 and the case was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Since there was no representation from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 29.02.2024, the Assessing Officer assessed income of the assessee at ₹.28,14,752/- against NIL income returned, inter alia, making disallowance under section 80P of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate drew our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 26.04.2022 passed by the juri iction Assessing Officer placed at page 1 of the paper. He also drew our attention to the notice dated 26.04.2022 issued by the juri iction Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act placed at I.T.A. No.1945/Chny/25 3 page 4 of the paper book. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the assessment order passed by the Faceless mechanism [Assessing Officer] is bad in law in terms 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 placed at page 50 of the paper book and prayed to quash the assessment order passed by the NFAC without issuing notice under section 148A(d) of the Act.

The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, 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 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was passed 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 and also passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act. 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 order and notice under I.T.A. No.1945/Chny/25 4 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 29.02.2024 passed by the assessment unit of NFAC is bad in law and it is quashed. The ld. AR prayed to keep open ground No. 4 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 ground raised by the assessee on assumption juri iction in ground Nos. 5 & 6 is allowed and ground No. 4 is kept open.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 26th September, 2025 at Chennai. (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 26.09.2025