THE OOKAL FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,WARANGAL vs. ITO., WARD-1, WARANGAL

As the assessee, by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal

Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 31/01/2024, holding a conviction that the interest income derived by the assessee society on its deposits co-operative bank/nationalized banks was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, scaled down its claim for deduction u/s 80P to the said extent and determined its income at Rs. 8,54,815/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee society carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success.

The assessee society aggrieved with the CIT(A) order has carried the matter in appeal before us. Society Limited VS. ITO 8. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions.

Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Learned Authorised Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee society, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the present appeal involves a delay of 9 days. The Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee society had well within the stipulated time requested its Chartered Accountant to file the present appeal, but due to certain technical glitches, i.e., difficulty in getting the One Time Password (OTP) required for online submission of the appeal due to problems with both e-mail and phone number, the relevant documents could be uploaded only on 09.07.2025, which by the time involved a delay of 9 days. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the petition and the affidavit of the assessee society wherein the aforesaid facts were deposed. The Ld. AR submitted that, as he delay in filing the appeal had crept in because of a bonafide reason, therefore, the same in all fairness be condoned.

Per Contra, the Ld. Sr. DR did not object to the seeking of the condonation of the delay involved in the present appeal. Society Limited VS. ITO 11. We have thoughtfully considered the reasons leading to the delay in filing of the present appeal by the assessee appellant, and are of the view that as the same had crept in because of bonafide reasons, therefore, the same merits to be condoned.

Shri SNSR Chinmai, Advocate, the Ld. AR, submitted that both the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24.04.2022 and Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 25.04.2022 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), i.e., outside the faceless mechanism as provided under the provisions of Section 144(b) read with Section 151A and the "E-Assessment Scheme of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" notified by the Government of India on 29.03.2022 under Section 151A, are bad and illegal. Summing up his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that after the introduction of the "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022" and the "e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022", it is only the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (FAO) who can issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act and not the “Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” (JAO), and the assessments are statutorily required to be as per the prescribed faceless mechanism provided under the provisions of Section 144(b) r.w Section 151A of the Act. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the AO had invalidly Society Limited VS. ITO assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down for want of a valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. The Ld. AR submitted that the subject issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others, Writ Petition Nos 25903 of 2023, dated 14.09.2023.

Per Contra, Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha, the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR), submitted that as the assessee within the specified time period contemplated under sub- section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, i.e., within a period of one month from the date on which the said notice was served upon it had not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal (JAO) who had issued Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 25/04/2022, therefore, it was precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. DR to support her contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had held that, as per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, an assessee is precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the AO if he does not do Society Limited VS. ITO so within 30 days of receipt of notice. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case, the assessee as required per the mandate of Section 124(3) of the Act, had within the prescribed period not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., the JAO, who had issued Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 25/04/2022, therefore, it cannot now be permitted to object to the same for the very first time before the Tribunal.

We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both parties regarding the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the FAO for framing the assessment vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 31/01/2024, which in turn is based on the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24/04/2022 and Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, dated 25/04/2022 by the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., the JAO.

We shall first deal with the Ld. DR’s contention that as the assessee had within the specified time period contemplated under sub- section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, i.e., within a period of one month from the date on which the said notice was served upon him not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal i.e., the JAO, who had issued Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 25/04/2022, therefore, Society Limited VS. ITO he was precluded from assailing the same for the first time before the Tribunal.

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to cull out Section 124(3) of the Act, which reads as under:

Before dealing with the subject issue, we deem it apposite to look into the fabric of Section 124 of the Act. On a careful perusal of Section 124 of the Act, it transpires that the same apparently deals with the issue of "territorial jurisdiction" of an Assessing Officer. Ostensibly, sub- section (1) of Section 124 contemplates vesting with the AO of jurisdiction over a specified area by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 contemplates the manner in which any controversy regarding the territorial jurisdiction of an AO is to be resolved. Apropos sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, the same Society Limited VS. ITO places a restriction upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O where he had initially not raised such objection within a period of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143 or Section 148 or sub-section (1) of Section 153A or sub-section (2) of Section 153C. To sum up, the obligation cast upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where he objects to the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, and not otherwise.

At this stage, we may herein refer to certain judicial pronouncements that had in the past held the field on the aforesaid issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Peter Vaz & Ors. Vs, CIT & Ors. (2021) 436 ITR 616(Bom) and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramesh D. Patel [2014] 42 taxmann.com 540/225 Taxman 411/362 ITR 492 (Gujarat), had held that as Section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction vested with an AO under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 120, therefore, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 which puts a restriction on an assessee to object to the validity of the jurisdiction of an A.O would get triggered only in a case where the dispute of the assessee is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction and have no relevance in so far his inherent jurisdiction for Society Limited VS. ITO framing the assessment is concerned. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bansilal B. Raisoni & Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2019] 101 taxmann.com 20/260 Taxman 281 (Bombay) had, inter alia, observed that the time limit for objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 124 has a relation to the Assessing Officer's territorial jurisdiction. It was further observed that the time limit prescribed would not apply to a case where the assessee contends that the action of the Assessing Officer is without authority of law and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Lalitkumar Bardia [2017] 84 taxmann.com 213/[2018] 404 ITR 63 (Bombay) had addressed the contention of the department that where the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction within the time prescribed under sub- section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, then, having waived its said right, it was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction after having participated in the assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court had observed that the waiver can only be of one's right or privilege, but non-exercise of the same will not bestow jurisdiction on a person who inherently lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, the principle of waiver cannot be invoked to confer jurisdiction on an Officer who is acting under the Act when he does not have jurisdiction. The Hon'ble High Court, while concluding as hereinabove, had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Society Limited VS. ITO Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi

We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent order passed in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) had, inter alia, observed that the order passed without jurisdiction is nullity. It was further observed that if a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. The Hon'ble Apex Court had further observed that any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid. Apart from that, it was observed that as there cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment, therefore, any consequential order passed or action taken will be invalid and without jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are culled out as under:

A statutory authority may lack jurisdiction if it does not fulfil the preliminary conditions laid down under the statute, which are necessary to the exercise of its jurisdiction. (Chhotobhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. V. Industrial Court, Maharashtra Nagpur Bench).There cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of assessment. (Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust). An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Any consequential order passed or action taken will also be invalid and without jurisdiction. (Dwarka Prasad Agrawal V. B.D. Agrawal). Thus, the power of assessing officers to reassess is limited and based on the fulfilment of certain preconditions. (CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.)"

We shall now advert to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology [2023] 454 ITR 582 (SC), that has been relied upon by the Ld. DR to impress upon us that as the assessee in the present case before us, had, within the time allowed by the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, dated 25/04/2022, i.e., period of 30 days, not called in question the jurisdiction of the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., JAO, based on which the Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, i.e., Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) had thereafter framed the assessment vide his order Society Limited VS. ITO passed under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 31/01/2024, therefore, as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, he cannot in the course of present proceedings before us object to the validity of the jurisdiction so assumed.

It would be relevant to cull out the facts that were involved in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (supra), as under:

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to point out that a plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 120 of the Act reveals that the "Jurisdiction" vested with the Income-tax Authorities is classified into four categories, viz. (i) territorial area; (ii) persons or classes of persons;

We have given thoughtful consideration on the issue of validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (FAO) for framing the assessment vide his order passed under Section 147 r.w.s Society Limited VS. ITO 144B of the Act, dated 31/01/2024 based on the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24/04/2022 and Notice issued U/s 148 of the Act, dated 25/04/2022 by the ITO, Ward 1, Warangal, i.e., the “Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” (JAO).

In furtherance to the powers conferred under sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 130 of the aforesaid Income-tax Act, the Central Board of Direct Taxes framed a scheme called as the "Faceless jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022." A plain reading of the aforesaid notification would clearly reflect that as has been amended Society Limited VS. ITO under section 130. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has framed a scheme which defines the Act to be the Income Tax Act and it specifically defines automated allocation which is defined under section 2 (1)(b), which again for ready reference is being re-produced herein under: "In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires, --

After the introduction of the above two schemes, it becomes mandatory for the Revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under section 147 and section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken as per the procedure legislated by the Parliament in respect of reopening/re- assessment i.e., proceedings under section 148A of the Act.

In the present case, both the proceedings i.e., the impugned proceedings under section 148A of the Act, as well as the consequential notices under section 148 of the Act were issued by the local jurisdictional officer and not in the prescribed faceless manner. The order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notices under section 148 of the Act are issued on 29-4-2022, i.e., after the "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022" and the "e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" were introduced.

From the afore given factual matrix, firstly the statutory provisions enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and secondly, the subsequent direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, what is clearly reflected is the fact that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had partly allowed the petitions which were filed by the Union of India challenging the judgements of various High Courts whereby the notice under section 148 of the unamended Act were set aside by the High Courts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only permitted the Union of India to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings under the amended provision of law, more particularly, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. It never intended the authorities concerned to continue with the proceedings from the stage of the issuance of notices under section 148, nor is the directions to that effect. And there cannot be any confusion, ambiguity or mis-conception for the respondent-Department to have in this regard.

In the instant case, undisputedly the respondent-Department has not proceeded against the petitioner under the substituted provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. Rather, it proceeded with the unamended provisions of law. This in other words takes the position back to the stage as it stood when the initial notices under section 148 under the unamended provisions of law were issued. This in other words also takes us to a position or a stage prior to the large number of writ petitions being allowed across the country, approximately 9,000 in number and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also vide the judgement of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

If we look into the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as enumerated in the preceding paragraphs and when we look into the facts of the present case, it would clearly reflect that the Parliament had by virtue of the Finance Act 2021, brought certain amendments to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, more particularly, in respect of the manner in which the reassessment and the procedure to be adopted by the Income-tax Department. The amendment was brought with an intention to make the law more transparent and effective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also while deciding the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as is discussed with in the preceding paragraph had specifically directed the Union of India to proceed further in terms of the substituted provisions brought in by way of Finance Act 2021.

What is also relevant to take note of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has also not relaxed the applicability of the Finance Act 2021. Rather, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in very clear and unambiguous terms had held that the notices issued under the un-amended provisions, which were struck down by the High Court, shall be treated as a notice under new amended provisions and the Union of India was directed to proceed further from that stage in terms of the amended provisions of law. In spite of such specific clear directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Union of India for reasons best known again proceeded with the procedure as it stood prior to the amended provisions which came into force from 1-4-2021. Society Limited VS. ITO 35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent-Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment being under section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2021, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.

Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

No order as to costs.”

Resultantly, the order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income- Tax Department, i.e., Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 31/01/2024, is quashed for want of a valid assumption of jurisdiction by him. Society Limited VS. ITO 30. Before parting, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, while disposing of the appeal in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others (supra), had observed that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercised the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, therefore, on the same terms as the petitions before them were being allowed only on the procedural flaw, hence right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. We, thus, respectfully follow the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble High Court and, on the same terms, allow the same liberty to the revenue regarding the present appeal.

We would further observe that the Hon’ble High Court of Jurisdiction in its order in the case of Yashnu Yasasvi Polucherla Vs. Income-tax Officer (2025) 179 taxmann.com 470 (Telangana), had held that as its earlier order in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others (supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, therefore, the allowing of the writ petition in the case before them is subject to the outcome of the aforesaid SLP Society Limited VS. ITO preferred by the Revenue against its decision in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others (supra). Thus, the Hon’ble High Court had allowed liberty to either of the parties, if they so want, to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending “Special Leave Petition” (SLP) on the very same issue. We, thus, respectfully follow the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and, thus, on the same terms allow liberty to either of the parties before us to seek revival of the matter in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.

Resultantly, the captioned appeals are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

In the result, all three appeals of the assesssee, i.e., to 1145/Hyd/2025 are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.