Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2016-17, alleging that the notices under Sections 148A and 148 were invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), contrary to the amended Income Tax Act. A 32-day delay in filing the appeal was also a preliminary matter, which was condoned due to the assessee's illness.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 32-day delay. It ruled that the reassessment notices issued by the JAO were null and void-ab-initio, citing violations of Sections 144B and 151A, consistent with High Court precedents. The impugned notices and assessment orders were quashed, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of additions.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) after the Finance Act, 2021 amendments are valid; and the legality of additions for unexplained cash deposits and investments.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 148A, 148A(b), 148A(d), 144B, 151A, 149(1)(a), 69A, 156, 144, Article 142
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.08.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for the A.Y.2016-17.
There is a delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, though the application was in the form of affidavit. The Ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and was suffering from Viral Pyrexia & Ployarthritis in the month of October 2024. The assessee was under medical treatment and was advised regular periodic consultation with the doctor for proper treatment of the disease, therefore, the assessee was not in a position to take steps for filing of the appeal within the period of limitation. After recovering from the ailment, the assessee filed the present appeal after the delay of 32 days, which is neither intentional nor willful, but due to the reason of ill health. Thus, the Ld.AR has pleaded that the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned.
On the other hand, the Ld.DR has not seriously objected to the condonation of delay, when the assessee has filed the medical certificate and was suffering from the disease during the period.
We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the application in para 3 and 4 as under :
The assessee has also filed a medical certificate, whereby the hospital has given the details of the disease of the assessee and treatment undergone by the assessee from 25.10.2024 to 15.11.2024. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances as explained by the assessee, we are satisfied that the assessee was having a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal :
7. Ground No.3 and 4. The assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), as the same are issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“the JAO”) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”). The Ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 21.02.2023 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2023 by the JAO, which is against the provisions of section 144B as well as section 151A of the Act w.e.f.29.03.2022. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 are not valid as the same is null and void-ab-initio, when the notice u/s 148A(b) and 148 was issued by the JAO having no validity under the Act to issue such notice after amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021. The Ld.AR has further submitted that an identical issue has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble High Court in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2016-17 in W.P.No.344 of 2025, vide order dated 24.04.2025, whereby, the Hon’ble High Court has quashed the notice 148A and 148 issued by the JAO instead of FAO. Hence, the Ld.AR has pleaded that the notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2023 may be quashed as not sustainable in law.
8. On the other hand, Ld.DR has submitted that the assessee has not raised such ground either before the AO or before the CIT(A). The Ld.DR has further submitted that the issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, this issue may be kept open or may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A), who has passed the ex-parte order. The Ld.DR has further submitted that even the jurisdictional High Court in the order dated 24.04.2025 has granted liberty to the parties to move appropriate petition, seeking revival of the writ petition in light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as material on record. In the case of the assessee, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 21.02.2023 by JAO. For ready reference, the same is reproduced as under :
Thereafter, the AO also passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequently notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2023 as under :
Undisputedly, the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) as well as notice u/s 148 were issued by the JAO and not by the faceless Assessing Officer. At the outset, we note that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has considered an identical issue in assessee's own case for the immediate preceding assessment year i.e. 2015-16 vide judgement dated 24.04.2025 in W.P.No.344 of 2025 and has recorded the issue involved in the said petition in para 4 of the said judgement as under :
It was further noted by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that this issue has been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts and the details of all the judgements of various High Courts are given in para 5 of the said judgement as under :
In light of various judgements of the Hon’ble High Courts, including the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer [2024] 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati), the Hon’ble High Court has held in para 13 to 19 as under :
14.
Thus, it is clear that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2016-17. As regards the contention of the Ld.DR that no such issue was raised by the assessee before the authorities below, we find from the Grounds of Appeal raised before the CIT(A) that the assessee had raised this issue in ground No.2 to 5 as under :
15. In view of the facts emanating from the record, we find that the assessee has duly raised this issue before the CIT(A) and therefore, the contention raised by the Ld.DR is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) dated 21.02.2023 as well as notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2023 by the JAO are not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly.
16. However, since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court has also given the liberty to the parties to move an appropriate petition, seeking revival of W.P. in light of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on this very issue, we also grant liberty to the parties to get this appeal revived, if, in case the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitate to modify this order.
On merits, both the Ld.AR as well as the Ld.DR has fairly submitted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily while passing the ex-parte order and therefore, the issue of additions made by the AO may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present the case and file necessary details and evidences before the CIT(A).
In view of the submissions on behalf of both the parties as well as ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, the issue on the merits of the addition is set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by speaking order after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case as well as to file necessary details and evidences.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th September, 2025.