Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT

464 ITR 430High Court2024#274 most cited
288

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hexaware Technologies Ltd v ACIT · Section 148 · Section 148A · Section 151A · faceless reassessment · income escaping assessment · order under Section 148A(d) · non-speaking order · validity of reassessment notice

Also reported as

162 Taxmann.com 225

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 144BSection 148ASection 151ASection 151Section 69ASection 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

doctrine of mergersection 151asection 144b(1)faceless assessment schemefaceless assessmentsection 148anon-speaking ordersection 148a(d)section 148a(b)income escaping assessmentorder under section 148a(d)section 151

Judgments citing Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT

Subramaniam Avinashilingam, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Subramaniam Avinashilingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 17, Valipalayam Lane, Valipalayam, Ward 1(2), Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aexpa2463E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘‘सी’’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ऐम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद" एवं "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" के सम" Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Subramaniam Avinashilingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 17, Valipalayam Lane, Valipalayam, Ward 1(2), Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [PAN: AEXPA2463E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri C.P. So…

Pavan Balan, Nilgiris vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ooty

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2116/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pavan Balan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 63A Maruti, Mount Pleasant, Coonoor, Ward 1, Ooty. Nilgiris 643 102. [Pan: Aihpp9673P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Vijayakumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijayakumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…d by the Jurisdictional 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. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on assumption of jurisdiction in 4 I.T.A. No.2116/Chny/25 ground Nos. 2 to 7 are allowed and other ground Nos. 8 to 14 become academic in view of our deci…

Annai Kanthammal Ramachandran Educational and Charitable Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1987/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

…d CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 9. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 10. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments o…

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3936/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions: a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3928/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment ord…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3228/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3227/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…e, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions: a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment ord…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3225/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3224/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3223/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions: a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment ord…

DCIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai

3012/Mum/2025

ITA 3087/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

The Estate Investment Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3012/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…, the impugned notice issued by the AO is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) The AR relied on the following jurisdictional and non- jurisdictional high court / Tribunal decisions:- a. Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT reported in [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay HC) Notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer in contravention of scheme of Faceless assessment. The Hon HC held that, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment or…

Thanaraj Sumathi, Mayiladuthurai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2031/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

…er dated 24.06.2025 2 14.09.2023 Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income-tax Officer High Court of Telangana - 156 taxmann.com 178 :-4-: ITA. No:2031/Chny/2025 3 03.05.2024 Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Bombay - 464 ITR 430 4 20.05.2024 Ram Narayan Sah v. Union of India - High Court of Gauhati 163 taxmann.com 478 5 02.07.2024 Sushila Sureshbabu Malge v. Income-tax Officer - High Court of Bombay - 468 ITR 624 6 19.07.2024 Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India High Court of Punjab & Haryana - 466 ITR 474 7 24.07.2024 Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola v. Deputy Commis…

Nitu Khadariya, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ncrb Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

…Officer carry a belief that there is escapement of income. 10. Identical issues have been considered by a Division Bench of High Court of Bombay, authored by one of us (the Chief Justice), in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/464 ITR 430 (Bombay) Issue 'A': 11. In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) also, the issue under consideration was whether notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. That question came to be answered by the Court in Paragraph Nos. 24 to 30 thereof. It is also settled law that validity of notice under Section 148 of the Act must be ju…

Bhawani Developers, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow-New

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid

ITA 253/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

…I.T.A. No.253/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.253/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhawani Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Lucknow-New 2/67, Bahar, Sahara Estate, Jankipuram, Lucknow. PAN:AAPFB8273P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C. A. Respondent by Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT (D.R.) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.Μ. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.253/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year…

Rajendraa Sakunthala, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sudharshan, Advocate for Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50C

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 11. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 12. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments o…

Viswanathan Pappathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1620/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Viswanathan Pappathi Income Tax Officer No. 24C, Pudupet Road, Vs. Ward – 2, 4Th Street, Tirupattur, Vellore. Vellore – 635 601. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ceqpp-4595-H] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…2022 is directly applicable in this case. 11. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in :-5-: ITA. No:1620/Chny/2025 Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 12. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of…

Chirag Kirpal, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 656/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…vide order dated 19-7-2024. We find that the Hon‘ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, being the Jurisdictional High Court for the assessee herein, by following the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd vs ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bom); decision of Hon‘ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs ITO reported in 156 Taxmann.com 178(Tel HC); decision of Hon‘ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sah vs Union of India reported in 163 Taxmann.com 478 (Gau HC) and after considering the decision of Hon‘ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tr…

Dattaprasad Radhakisan Revgade, Hivargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1897/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra, Judicialmember & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1897/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dattaprasad Radhakisan V The Income Tax Officer, Revgade, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. At Hivargaon Post Dongargaon, Tal Aklole, Ahmednagar – 422609. Pan: Cddpr8213C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

…n of jurisdiction by Ld. JAO u/s 148 is in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated in Notification No 18/2022 dated 29th March 2022, which has been upheld by Jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) as mandatory jurisdictional condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.ws 144 read with section 1448 of the Act by th…