TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO) u/s 148 when the same were in consistent with the legislative intent when the powers to issue the notice u/s 148 remained with intact with the JAO even after bringing the Faceless Assessment Scheme. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice u/s 148 issued by the JAO when both the JAO as well as units under NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act as has been held by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in its order in WP. No. WPO/ 1566/2023 and WPO/ 1549/2023 in the case of Triton Overseas Pvt Ltd and in the case of Sanghi Steel Udyog Private Ltd respectively vide order dt. 13.9.2023. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the JAO has rightly followed the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order in the case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal, wherein the "Assessing Officers were directed to conduct an enquiry and pass orders in relation to the reopening of cases. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Assessing Officers are the authorities specified in the said provisions of section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which stand was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI s Ashish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT(A) and pointed-out that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has quashed the order passed u/sec.147 vide order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P.No.5606/2024 and consequently, the learned CIT(A) has held the notice issued u/sec.148 is invalid and consequently, the assessment order passed u/sec.147 is also not sustainable. Accordingly, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted by the learned CIT(A). 5. Before the Tribunal, the Learned DR for the Revenue has submitted that the issue of validity of notice issued u/sec. 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short "JAO"] vs., Faceless Assessment Officer [in short "FAO"] is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, this issue may be kept open to be decided in accordance with the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. 6. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has fairly submitted that the parties may be given liberty to get this appeal revived as per the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue. 7. We have considered the rival sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment year 2018- 2019 vide order dated 08.10.2025 has considered this issue in Paras-5 to 5.1 as under : "5. We have heard the Learned Authorised Representative and Learned Departmental Representative on this issue which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. AR has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO 156 taxman.com 478 and submitted that the impugned reassessment order is not valid and liable to be set aside. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, at the outset we note that the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (supra) [As per Corrigendum dated 10th October, 2025 the correct citation is Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar vs., The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar in ITA.No.1259/Hyd./2024] has considered an identical issue vide order dated 04.09.2025 in para Nos. 9 to 16 as under : "9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as material on record. In the case of the assessee, notice u/sec.148A(b) was issued on 21.02.2023 by JAO. For ready reference, the same is repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 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 Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2024) 167 taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)] where the issue was in respect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION [2024) 166 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER [2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)], Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5) [2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4012], Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIA [2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287], Rajasthan High Court in the case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitions [2023: RJ-JD:4984-DB] which stood d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch 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, the Income Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it ough to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTAN' COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX [(2025)170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)], on an issue whether it was justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in the following an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on the ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf [[1978]113 ITR 589 (Bombay)] as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 length, because it has been suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the observations made by the High Court, have been harsh on the officers. It is clear that the observations of the High Court, seemingly vehement, and apparently unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed to become widespread, could result in considerable harassment to the assesses-public without any benefit to the Revenue. We would like to say that the department should take these observations in the proper spirit. The observations of the High Court should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard should be paid by the adjudicating authorities and the appellate authorities to the requirements of judicial discipline and the need for giving effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities which are binding on them." 15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese 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 appropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose 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 ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer. By following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah dated 24.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.344 of 2025 as well as the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act as well as the decision of co-ordinate bench as well as u/s. 148 of the Act in the case of the assessee by the JAO are not valid and liable to be set aside. We order accordingly." 8. In case of the assessee when the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has quashed the initiation of proceedings u/sec. 147 of the Act, then, it would vitiate the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Following the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the learned CIT(A). The same is upheld. However, an identical issue is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which you are assessable under the Income tax Act, 1961(here in after referred to as "the Act") for Assessment Year 2016-17. · information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated in this regard suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051563421(1) dated 29/03/2023 and annexed herewith for reference, 2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. LAXMI PAVANA GAYATHRI MUKKERA CIRCLE 1,KARIMNAGAR Document 3 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred by initiating proceedings u/s 147of the Act, simply relied on the SFT information shown in the verification module of Insight Portal at the time of reopening, however, eithe....