“order under section 148A(d)”

ReassessmentSection 148ASection 148A771 judgments

The decision most relied on for order under section 148A(d) is Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on order under section 148A(d)

Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal

444 ITR 1 · 2022 · Supreme Court

524

citing judgments

Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income-tax Act between April 1, 2021, and May 4, 2022, must be treated as notices issued under the new Section 148A(b) of the amended law. This requires the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended reassessment provisions, including issuing an order under Section 148A(d) before a fresh notice under Section 148.

Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

466 ITR 474 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment notices under Section 148A, issued in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, must be issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO

165 Taxmann.com 581 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under section 148A, including the order under section 148A(d), is a mandatory procedural step before reassessment proceedings can be initiated under section 147/148. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

463 ITR 702 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The validity of sanction for issuing orders under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 must be tested with reference to the amended section 151. If sanction is not granted by an authority specified under section 151(ii), such orders and notices are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT

164 Taxmann.com 414 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

An order passed under Section 148A(d) and subsequent proceedings are void if the Assessing Officer provides insufficient opportunity for the assessee to file a reply before issuing the notice under Section 148A(b).

Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

159 Taxmann.com 178 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Where more than three years have expired from the end of a relevant assessment year, the sanctioning authority under section 151(ii) for reassessment proceedings must be the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. An order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 based on the latter's approval are liable to be quashed.

Core Logistic Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

175 Taxmann.com 453 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is the specified authority for issuing a notice under Section 148 within three years when the amount involved exceeds fifty lakhs, as per Section 151(i) and Section 149(1). An order under Section 148A(d) requires approval from such a specified authority.

Royal Bitumen (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

164 Taxmann.com 606 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Orders passed under section 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment proceedings are vitiated if the Assessing Officer fails to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before issuing the notice.

Judgments citing order under section 148A(d)

Vikas Chandra HUF, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward-4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Hence, for the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the approval granted by the PCCIT for issuance of order under section 148A(d) is not valid. Consequently, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 issued pursuant to order under section 148A ... various grounds. 2. One of the grounds raised across the bar is that the sanction for issuance of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been granted without application of mind by all the five officers involved. For ease of reference, the sanction under Section

Narayani Rathore, Shivpuri vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

first. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 26.03.2022 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that ... eyes of law. 3. Ground No.5 is reproduced as under: 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have

Sunita, Sahu vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

first. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 31.03.2022 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that ... Ground No.5 is reproduced as under: ITA No. 432/AGR/2025 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated

Misrilall Jain & Sons, Singhbhum West vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

therefore, there was no further escapement of income. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s explanation and passed an order under section 148A(d) holding it to be a fit case for reopening. Consequently, another notice under section 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued. In response, the assessee again filed

Spr Publications Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2296/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

filed its return of income for the subject year, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 28/04/2022, was passed by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad, i.e., JAO. Also, notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28/04/2022

Bilwa Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1363/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

filed is return of income for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2019-20, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 21/03/2023 was passed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Thereafter, the ITO, Ward ... 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

Bilwa Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1362/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250

initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) passed order under section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the AO issued notice under section of the Act, dated 27/04/2022. In compliance, the assessee company filed its return ... sixth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. 21 Bilwa Infrastructure Limited vs. ITO 49. In the present case, the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 have been issued on 07.04.2022 relatable to the relevant Assessment Year 2018- 19 i.e., after more than three years

Abraham Nathaniel Addanki, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1148/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1148/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Abraham Nathaniel Vs. Income Tax Officer, Addanki, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Adqpa7546N

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022. Elaborating on her contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as both the order under section 148A(d), dated 29/03/2023 and notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2023 had been issued by the ITO, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

Abdul Salam Mohamed Yasin, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 7502/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: 1. Assessment Year

Section 07Section 1Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

within the surviving time limit, the statutory trilogy of acts, namely, consideration of the reply under section 148A(c), passing of the order under section 148A(d), and issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act. 6. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ... cannot be resurrected by compliance with the procedural trappings of section 148A, nor can it be revived by the passing of an order under section 148A(d). Once the jurisdictional foundation collapses by efflux of time, all 8 Abdul Salam Mohamed Yasin subsequent acts founded thereon are rendered legally sterile

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Bulldwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1119/DEL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

Supreme Court in the case Ashish Agrawal (supra). The AO issued a notice under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 after passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act. In the C.O. of AY 2016-17 one of the legal contentions raised by the assessee is that ... officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section

ACIT, Parel Piramal Chamber vs. Bhavin Kumar Rameshkumar Jain, Parel

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6174/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-2020

For Respondent: None

Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69CSection 80G

After granting an opportunity of under section 148A were initiated. After granting an opportunity of being heard under section 148A(b), an order under section 148A(d) being heard under section 148A(b), an order under section 148A(d) being heard under section 148A(b), an order under section 148A

Rohit Goel, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-20, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 8320/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8320/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Rohit Goel, Vs Dcit, The Tax Chambers, Central Circle-20, Advocates & Legal Advisors, New Delhi-110055 C-177, Defence Colony, Lgf, New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amvpg5611Q Assessee By: Ms. Swati Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073465261(1) Dated 19.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

days, the AO had, by virtue of the fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, seven days to pass an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (which was necessarily required to accompany a notice under Section 148 of the Act). The said period expired ... Delhi); 2024 SCC OnLine Del 330.]. Consequently, the validity of sanction for issuing the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 should be tested with reference to amended section 151. If so tested, it is evident that sanction was not granted by an authority specified under

Ajay Nagpal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-48(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 8145/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8145/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19 Ajay Nagpal, Vs Income Tax Officer, 15/10, East Patel Nagar, Ward-48(1), New Delhi-110008 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpn9871D Assessee By: Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081608419(1) Dated 09.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151

Nitin Harilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 6536/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Writ Petition No. 271 of 2023), held as under: “5. The Petitioner has contended that in the present case, the order under section 148A(d) dated 13.07.2022 was passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17. Consequently, according to the provisions of section

Sunil Piyush Shah, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Juris. -the ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1917/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Piyush Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 244ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 29A

That the initiation of reassessment proceedings itself is void ab initio, as the notice issued under section 148A(b) and the consequential order under section 148A(d) dated 02.05.2023 were passed mechanically, without furnishing the Appellant with any incriminating material specific to him, and without granting an opportunity to cross

Tushar Vipinchandra Shukla, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1654/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 80G

sanction under section 151 of the Act was obtained only in respect of alleged escapement of "5,00,000/-, whereas the order under section 148A(d) refers to alleged escapement of "10,00,000/-, thereby travelling beyond the sanction accorded. 5. The sanction granted under section

Pallapu Srinivasarao (HUF), Almasguda vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1586/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

15/02/2024 was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the ITO, Ward-1, Ongole, i.e., the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short “JAO”) passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24/03/2024. Further, the JAO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 24/03/2024 calling upon the 3 Pallapu ... 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

Mohd Shoaib Ur Rahman, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1561/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

under section 148A of the Act. 5. The ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short, “JAO”) passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 07/04/2022. Thereafter, the JAO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 07/04/2022. In response, the assessee filed ... dated 24/02/2024, inter alia, on the ground that the ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad, i.e., JAO had passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 07/04/2022 and issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 07/04/2022, therefore, the assessment order passed without valid jurisdiction cannot

Lalitha Kuchibhatla, Chittoor vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation

ITA 1543/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1543/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Lalitha Kuchibhatla Vs. Income Tax Officer Chittoor Ward 1(1) Pan:Axdpk2304D Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Sandhya राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Smt. Lalitha Kuchibhatla (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 26.08.2025 For The A.Y 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Advocate S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar AVES, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A(1)

appeal: “a. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Tirupati has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148A(b); pass an order under section 148A(d) and issued notice under section 1458 of the I.T. Act and, therefore, the consequent proceedings including the order of assessment are invalid ... Kuchibhatla Page 7 of 21 ITA No 1543 of 2025 Lalitha Kuchibhatla 9. On perusal of above, it is evident that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by JAO on 23.03.2023. We Page 8 of 21 ITA No 1543 of 2025 Lalitha Kuchibhatla have also

Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1539/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaappeal In Ita Nos. Assessee Revenue A.Ys 1536 To 1539/ Hyd/2025 Sukesini Kumili, Hyderabad Pan:Ckmpk5466J Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1), Hyderabad 2015-16 & 2016-17 निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: || Shri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: | 07/01/2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 16/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Four Appeals Are Filed By Smt. Sukesini Kumili ("The Assessee") Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) For The A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17, All Dated 16.07.2025. Since Inter-Related Issues Are Involved In All These Four Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Advocate Shri S. Rama Rao

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151A(1)Section 153

passing this Order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of above, it is evident that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by JAO on 06.04.2022. We Page 6 of 20 ITA Nos. 1536 to 1539 of 2025 Sukesini Kumili have ... after 29.03.2022 shall be in accordance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme by the FAO. Hence, on perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the CBDT notification, we find that in the present case, the order passed under