Smt. Subhadra Kumari Mudigonda Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad Quashes Reopening: JAO Issued Section 148 Notice Post 29.03.2022 Held Invalid
he Tribunal held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 is invalid under the faceless reassessment regime. It ruled that only the Faceless AO could issue such notices, vitiating the entire reassessment.
In this appeal, Assessee challenged the validity of reopening proceedings for AY 2015-16 on the sole legal ground that the notice u/s 148 & the order u/s 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), contrary to the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme notified by CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022. Assessee demonstrated that the order u/s 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022 & the consequential notice u/s 148 issued on the same date clearly emanated from the JAO, even though—post 29.03.2022—only the FAO was legally empowered to issue such notices in view of section 151A(1) & (2).
Tribunal noted from record that while the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) dated 23.03.2022 was issued before the CBDT Notification, both the 148A(d) order & 148 notice issued on 07.04.2022 were passed after the notification came into effect, when the JAO had already ceased to have authority. Tribunal examined the CBDT Notification & observed that it expressly mandates that notices u/s 148 issued on or after 29.03.2022 must be through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Tribunal also relied on the binding Judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kotha Kanthaiah, which has categorically held that notices issued by the JAO after 29.03.2022 are invalid. Tribunal further referred to its own decision in Shri Kotha Kanthaiah vs ITO for AY 2016-17, wherein, following multiple High Court rulings including Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, identical notices issued by JAO were quashed as void ab initio. Applying the same legal principle, Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 dated 07.04.2022 & the preceding 148A(d) order issued by JAO are without jurisdiction & therefore invalid. Consequently, the reassessment initiated on the basis of such defective notice also stands vitiated. At the same time, since the issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Tribunal granted liberty to both parties to seek revival of the appeal if the Supreme Court decision later warrants modification. The appeal of the Assessee was thus allowed.
