“faceless assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B2,420 judgments

The decision most relied on for faceless assessment is Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (156 Taxmann.com 178), cited in 213 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on faceless assessment

Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO

156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · High Court

213

citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India

165 Taxmann.com 115 · 2024 · High Court

106

citing judgments

The faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A applies from the stage of issuing show cause notices under Sections 148 and 148A, and non-compliance with the scheme or related notifications vitiates the subsequent assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings are considered to commence upon the issuance of such a show cause notice.

Ram Narayan Sah v. Union of India

163 Taxmann.com 478 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B. Such a notice is invalid as it defeats the object of faceless assessment and is not in consonance with CBDT notifications.

T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO

469 ITR 657 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act does not completely divest the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) of their power to assess or reassess, even with the introduction of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme.

Triton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

156 Taxmann.com 318 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under Section 148 for income escaping assessment issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid if it does not comply with Section 151A and relevant CBDT notifications concerning faceless assessment.

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.

Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras

169 Taxmann.com 542 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) does not have the power to issue notices under Section 148 or 148A of the Income Tax Act. Its jurisdiction for assessment or reassessment begins only from the stage of issuing notices under Section 142(1) or 143(2).

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.

Judgments citing faceless assessment

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh -1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

which was subsequently revised on 19.01.2019 declaring income of Rs.7,81,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed by the Faceless Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 11.12.2020, accepting the returned income without making ... separately brought to charge under section 56(2)(viii). 12. The contention of the assessee regarding jurisdiction of Delhi High Court on account of faceless assessment was also rejected. The Ld. Pr. CIT held that jurisdiction remained with Chandigarh, where the assessee is assessed, and that faceless assessment merely involved

Cholamandalam Ms Risk Services Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar. RFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N., CIT

Section 143Section 195Section 263Section 9

which return was selected for scrutiny and later assessment was completed u/s.143 r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 07.04.2021 by the Faceless Assessment Unit assessing the total income at ₹4,12,41,620/-. The Ld.PCIT having gone through the assessment records found on a scrutiny of the annual

Jaidev Vinod Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he held appeal of the assessee as liable to be dismissed

ITA 6626/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 43CSection 50CSection 53A

against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073548806(1), dated 21/02/2025, passed against the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 31.03.2022 for Assessment Year

Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza Legal Representative of Late Shri. Vinod Dsouza), Mangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, with above direction to the learned assessing officer, the ground No

ITA 2348/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Jeanette Dsouza, Lr Of Late Shri Vinod Dsouza, Flat No. San F 10, The Income Tax Officer, Holy Family Apartments, Ward – 1(1), Vs. Lalbagh, Mangalore, Mangalore. Karnataka – 575 003. Pan: Adhpd4076H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna Shenoy, CA

Section 139Section 142Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 159Section 55

passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) by the National faceless assessment Centre (the learned AO) was dismissed. Page 2 of 5 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the fact that the learned CIT is confirmed

Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rafeeq Peermohideen, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7702/MUM/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 250Section 268ASection 44ASection 69

filed on 11/09/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 19,06,470/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Faceless Assessment Scheme to verify specific information pointing to tax evasion. 3. During the year, the assessee purchased a residential property for Rs. 2,38,25,000/- inclusive of stamp duty

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4789/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, date of orders 31.12.2024 and 16.12.2024 respectively. The impugned orders emanated from the orders of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (for Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd. brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date

Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd, Thane vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4788/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Krishan Pal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed

ITA 139/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 139/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Krishan Pal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M R Sahu, Ward-2(2), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-22001 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Asqpk6236J Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068016367(1) Dated 27.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 80C

assessee has sought to raise the following additional grounds: “1. That on facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Faceless Assessing Officer of National Faceless Assessment Centre,Delhi (FAO,NFAC-Delhi) erred in having assumed jurisdiction for concluding the face less assessment of income escaping ... backdrop that the assessee’s case before us is that given the fact that the faceless regime in question got notified on 29.03.2022, the faceless assessment framed in his case on 28.03.2022 is non-est in the eyes of law. 6. The Revenue has drawn strong support from the learned

Balaram Giri, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 696/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Sh. Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69

assessment order under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 22-03-2023, issued by the Leamed AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, is erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case, and liable to be set aside. 3. The Learned AO has issued the subject assessment order

Abhimanyu Gupta, Patiala vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Patiala, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

Jurisdictional AO ('the JAO') is not empowered to issue notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 after the new regime of faceless assessment has been brought into force by the amendment made under s. 148 of the Act. 1961 which has so been held by the Jurisdictional High ... also raised regarding jurisdiction. It was contended that the reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), whereas under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, such powers vested only with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench

Mallikarjuna Kuntrapaka, Andhrapradesh vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Tirupati, Andhrapradesh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1899/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Sri Mallikarjuna Kuntrapaka, Tirupati. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Pin – 517 501. Ward-1(3), Tirupati. Andhra Pradesh Pan Aktpk4751B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : Sri V Narendra Sharma, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Payal Gupta, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short “Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2

For Appellant: Sri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS Payal Gupta, Sr. AR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234Section 69A

gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is bad in law and void ab-initio as the said assessment order is founded on the reopening of the assessment made

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gudiwada vs. Chagantipadu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Noh957, Chagantipadu Village

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the

ITA 641/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

order of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to facts, and deserves to be set aside. The assessment order passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer on 27.03.2023 may kindly be restored. 6. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. While the assessee has raised ... same Page No. 5 LT.A. No. 641/VIZ/2025 CO. No. 42/VIZ/2025 Chagantipadu Primary Agri Coop Credit Society Limited NOH957 == has not been issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (in short “FAO"). Consequently, the assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed under section 147 t.w.s. 144B of the Act was held to be without jurisdiction

Suman Jagannath Sankhe, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41.4.4, Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 7528/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, re-assessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority, National Faceless Assessment Centre [the Ld. AO], is bad in law and void for want of jurisdiction and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the same

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zoetis India Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5984/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Revenue by

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35D

COVID-19. Appellant has also contended that the AO has failed to follow the procedure laid down for the assessment under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 and has also not followed the principles of natural justice while passing the assessment order without providing opportunity of being heard. The appellant

Anish Vishnoi, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Ld. Assessing Officer without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, rendering the assessment void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming ... documents relied upon for formation of such reason for reopening. However, the Additional/ Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income tax/ Income Tax officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (`the Assessing Officer') rejected the objections vide communication dated 17.01.2022 stating that the land is a capital asset

Zs Associates India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -12, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 211/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.211/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Zs Associates India Private V The Additional / Joint / Limited, S Deputy / Assistant Tower 3, World Trade Centre, Commissioner Of Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Income Tax, Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. Pan:Aaacz2157Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade Date Of Hearing 11/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Assessment Order Dated 16.02.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017- 18, Emanating From Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 06.12.2021, Which In Turn Emanates From Draft Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144C(1) Of The Act

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(5)

against the order dated 16 February 2022 (received on 16 February 20221 passed by the learned Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ["hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer"/"AO"| under section 143(3) r.ws 144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Income

Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncq-2(1), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2683/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2683/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Vijayasekar Jeayanthi, The Income Tax Officer, 84, Tagore Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 2(1), Sivanandha Colony, Coimbatore Coimbatore -641 012. Pan: Adcpj 7575Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri A. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

wait for the fresh assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The appellant received a letter dtd. 19.09.2025 from National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department intimating her assessment for assessment year 2017-18 has been selected for the purpose of faceless assessment. 6. When the same

Mittal Cotspin Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 950/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 950/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Mittal Cotspin Ltd., The Ito, St. No. 1, Opp. Govt. Primary Vs Ward 2(5), High School, Madhopouri, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagcm7124G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca, Shri Aditya Sood, Ca & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Sood, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

provisions of section 151 of the Act." A.Y.2014-15 4 Yours faithfully, Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.” 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that though assessment was reopened for the reason

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

Appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1865/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A

issued on 30.03.2023 for AY: 2020-21 to 2022-23. The said notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2023 was issued not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), but by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) namely, the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle1(1), Chennai. The impugned reassessment order ... Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2023 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as mandated under the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 notified u/s 151A, are without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio

K V Tex Firm, Chennai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1860/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 44A