TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring DIN ITBA/AST/M/147/2025-26/1076024080(1) (Annexure B), and the rectified order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the 1 Respondent bearing DIN ITBA/REC/M/154/2025-26/1078190268(1) (Annexure B-3), for the assessment year 2017-18; c) quashing the demand notice dated 02.05.2025 issued under Section 156 of Act by the 1st Respondent bearing DIN ITBA/AST/M/147/2025-26/1076024167(1) (Annexure B-1), and the demand notice dated 03.07.2025 bearing DIN ITBA/REC/M/154/2025-26/1078190280(1) (Annexure B-4) for the assessment year 2017-18; d) quashing the penalty notice dated 19.05.2025 issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act by the 1st Respondent, bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1076275595(1) (Annexure B-2), for the assessment year 2017-18; Assessment Year 2018-19 e) quashing the notice dated 17.12.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the 1st Respondent, bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024-25/1071279364(1) (Annexure D), for the assessment year 2018-19; f) quashing the assessment order dated 02.05.2024 (to be read as 02.05.2025) passed by the 1st Respondent bearing DIN ITBA/AST/M/147/2025-26/1076024290(1) (Annexure E), and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessment year 2020-21; o) quashing the demand notice dated 02.05.2025 issued under Section 156 of Act by the 1st Respondent bearing DIN ITBA/AST/M/147/2025-26/1076025000(1) (Annexure L-1), and demand notice dated 03.07.2025 bearing the DIN ITBA/REC/M/154/2025-26/1078178953(1) (Annexure L-4) for the assessment year 2020-21; p) quashing the penalty notice dated 25.07.2025 issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act by the 1st Respondent, bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2025-26/1078905501 (1) (Annexure L-2), for the assessment year 2020-21; Assessment Year 2021-22 q). quashing the notice dated 25.11.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act by the 1st Respondent, bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2024-25/1070615175(1) (Annexure-N), the assessment year 2021-22; r) quashing the assessment order dated 02.05.2024 (to be read as 02.05.2025) passed by the 1st Respondent bearing DIN: ITBA/AST/M/147/2025-26/1076025177 (1) (Annexure P), and the rectified order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent bearing DIN ITBA/REC/M/154/2025-26/1078159953 (1) (Annexure P-3), for the assessment year 2021-22; s) quashing the demand no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner as Rs. 13,56,19,116/- Rs. 38,65,33,828/- Rs. 25,85,20,222/- Rs. 50,54,51,640/- Rs. 22,49,90,814/- and Rs. 47,90,50,050/- respectively. 4. Aggrieved by the said Assessment Order, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeals before the 3rd respondent - appellate authority, which is still pending adjudication. 5. Meanwhile, decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - W.P.No.17352/2022 and connected matters - dated 28.08.2025, has disposed of the petitions quashing the show cause notice on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Act in the light of Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Notification pursuant thereto which provided for issuance of notice only by the faceless authority of the respondent. It is therefore submitted that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act and assessment orders, etc., may be set aside and the present petition be disposed of in terms of the said order. It is also submitted that the necessary directions may be issued to the CIT(A) to dispose of the Appeals, as h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anth, Sri Yash Jain, learned counsel representing Sri M. Pranav, Sri S.P. Chidambaram, learned counsel representing Sri. Naga Deepak, Ms. Hema Jaiswal, Ms. P.K. Kalyani, learned counsel representing Sri Amancharla V Gopala Rao, Ms. Akruti Agarwal, Sri. Kirath Singh, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Kruthi, Sri T. Pradyoth, Sri Shriraj Manyam, learned counsel representing M/s. R.S. Associates, and Sri P.S.S. Kailash Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, Ms. J. Sunitha, Sri A. Sudhakar Reddy and Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Income Tax Department. 2. In all these writ petitions the challenge is to the initiation of proceedings under Sections 148(A) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). 3. Petitioners though have taken other pleas in most of these writ petitions, but they submit that the issues involved in the present batch of writ petitions have been considered and settled by the judgment rendered by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 vide order dated 28.04.2025 following the decision rendere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... JAO. The dates of the impugned notices and proceedings have been referred to in the individual writ petitions, which are post 29.03.2022 i.e., the date on which the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 151A of the Act has made the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2002 vide Notification No. 18 of 2022. 6 The respondent Department was asked to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit, if necessary, on facts and legal issues raised herein. Counter affidavit 7. Learned counsel for the respondent Department has obtained instructions in all these matters. has also been filed in more than 70 matters. Based upon the instructions received from the Department, learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the initiation of impugned proceedings under Section 148(A) of the Act has been done by the JAO after coming into force of the faceless scheme with effect from 29.03.2022. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents have also not been able to dispute that the legal issue as regards the jurisdiction of the JAO to initiate proceedings instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have been well settled by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by other jurisdictional High Courts. 14. As a matter of fact, several orders following the ratio rendered in the above cases have been passed one after the other. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present batch of writ petitions also stand covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra). The relevant extract of the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 is reproduced hereunder: "15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer ((2023) 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19 Accordingly, the instant writ perition stands allowed in favour of the assensee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A 148-A and 148 stands set anide/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terme as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to c....