TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able cause. Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/ s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the AY 2015-16 is bad in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who erred in reopening the assessment on presumptions, surmises and mere suspicion and without following Standard operating procedure (SOP) for the AY 2015- 16, which act of the learned A.O is against the intention of legislature in introducing the provisions of section 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who did not accept the income as per the return of income filed on 17.05.2022 by the appellant in response to notice u/s. 148 issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdictional Assessing officer instead of the Faceless A.O. which is contrary to the e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, read with CBDT notification no. 18/2022/F.No. 370142/ 16/2022- TPL dated 29.03.2022 and thus all the proceedings emanating from such invalid notice and order are bad in law and null & void and are liable to be quashed. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2015-16 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B issued is bad in law and lacks jurisdiction in view of the recent judgement of honorable jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition Nos.25903, 28214, 28271, 32075, 32090, 32688, 33050, 33402, 33478, 34100, 34101, 34340, 34598, 34604, 34661, 34698, 34746, 34836, 35774, 36598, 36828, 36945, 37414, 37491, 37536, 43427, 45047 of 2022, Writ Petition Nos. 15383, 47, 3719, 3721, 3729, 3738, 9695, 11599, 14485, 14492, 15421, 15736, 15745, 15768, 15779, 16164, 16223, 16224, 16761, 16783, 19966, 20914, 20929, 20959 and 23556 of 2023, wherein it has been held that as per the amended provisions w.e.f 1.4.2021 notices u/s 148 can be only given by the officers of the faceless assessment unit and as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess reassessment introduced by the CBDT. 7. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, issued under section 151A(1) and (2) of the Act, mandates that with effect from 29.03.2022, all notices under section 148 of the Act must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Courts, the Ld. AR argued that when a notice is issued by an authority having no jurisdiction in law, such notice is void ab initio, and all consequential proceedings stand vitiated. He therefore submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequent assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the legal issue raised by the assessee is pending adjudication b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. [Notification No. 18/2022/F. No. 370142/16/2022-TPL(Part 1] SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy. 11. On perusal of para no. 3(b) of the said notification, it is evident that any notice under section 148 of the Act issued on or after 29.03.2022 shall be issued in accordance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme by the FAO. In this regard, we have also gone through the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, which is to the following effect: 12. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the notice under section 148 of the Act have been issued by the JAO on 07.04.2022. 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, while the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued before the date of the CBDT notification, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022, i.e., af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s initiated under Section 148A as also under Section 148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act read with Notification 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followed in a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similar terms. 12. 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 : 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom), Gauhati High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sah vs. Union Of India [(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)], Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh Bangu vs. Union Of India [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)], and Telangana High Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and which otherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended that the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, on the one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce its pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writ petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this High Court resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which in the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken on many occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of the matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to the Income Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things further worse,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assesses and chaos in administration of tax laws. ... .... ... 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent- Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Section 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically. 37. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred by initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, simply relied on the SFT information shown in the verification module of Insight Portal at the time of reopening, however, either no information gathered or not conducted any inquiry further in order to form an honest and a reasonable belief that certain income had escaped assessment in the case of the appellant, As such, said proceedings and the consequent order ought to be declared null and void-ab-initio. 3. The Notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2023 is illegal and unsustainable in law since the income alleged to have escaped assessment, actually is far below the threshold limit of Rs. 50 Lacs/-, in the present case, it is actually Rs. 30,61,000/- only and thereby, barred by limitation under the provisions of section 149(1) (a) of the Act. Since the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2023, is illegal and unsustainable in law, accordingly, the impugned reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 01,03.2024 and the notice of demand dated 01.03.2024 issued u/s 156 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act, dated 07.04.2022 is not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 14. Further, since the issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., against the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the Order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar in WP.No.344 of 2025, dated 24.04.2025 (supra) has also given the liberty to the parties to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of the petition in light of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., (supra) on this issue. Therefore, we grant liberty to the parties to get this appeal revived, if the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitates to modify this Order. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th October, 2025. ============= Document 1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 30.03.2022. However no response has been received till date. Therefore, it is construed that the assessee has no proper explanation with respect to the above mentioned escapement of income in his case. 7. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available on record, it is decided that the case of the assessee is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A. Y. 2015-16. As the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, amounting to Rs.50 lakhs or more has escaped assessment. 8. This order is issued with the prior approval of the PCCIT, AP & TELANGANA, Hyderabad. MD RASHID EQBAL WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD/ Document 3 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD/ To. RAMESH SISTLA 8-2-547/1/2/B F-301 IDEAHAVEN APARTMENT , ROAD NO 07 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD 500034 , Andhra Pradesh India PAN: A.Y: Dated: DIN & Notice No: AEAPS7184M 2015-16 07/04/2022 ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022- 23/1042641020(1) Sir/Madam/ M/s. Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act.1961 . I have the following information in your ca....