Sundarraj Sujatha Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Assessee challenged reopening for AY 2015-16 solely on the legal ground that notice u/s 148 dated 08.04.2022 was issued by JAO even though CBDT had already notified the Faceless Reassessment Scheme on 29.03.2022 pursuant to Sec.151A mandating that notices u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) & 148 must be issued only through automated faceless allocation. Tribunal found that the impugned notice was issued physically by JAO, not by NFAC, & therefore contravened the statutory scheme & violated Rule of Law. Tribunal noted that jurisdictional Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd (24.06.2025) has categorically held that post-29.03.2022, JAO-issued notices u/s 148 are invalid.
Tribunal also referred to consistent favourable views of Bombay, Telangana, Gujarat & Punjab & Haryana High Courts & held that the legal issue is no longer res integra. Accordingly, notice dated 08.04.2022 was declared invalid & reopening was held void; consequently the reassessment order dated 11.03.2024 stood null in eyes of law. Tribunal therefore did not go into merits. Appeal allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 24.07.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2015-16.
