Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Reassessment Declared Void Ab Initio: ITAT Hyderabad Holds JAO Had No Authority to Issue Notices under Sections 148A and 148 Post–Notification 18/2022
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the reassessment framed for AY 2019–20 was invalid and void ab initio because the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward-1, Nellore), rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), had issued the notice under Section 148A(b), passed the order under Section 148A(d), and issued the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that after the introduction of Section 151A and the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, all actions relating to reopening—including issuance of notices—must mandatorily be conducted in a faceless manner via automated allocation to a FAO. Relying on binding decisions such as Hexaware Technologies, Prakash Pandurang Patil (Bombay HC, affirmed by Supreme Court), Kishan Kumar Thotakura (AP HC) and Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (TS HC), the ITAT held that the JAO had no authority in law to initiate or issue notices under Section 148A/148 after 29.03.2022. The Revenue’s reliance on Section 124(3) and the Kalinga Institute ruling was rejected because the assessee had challenged inherent lack of jurisdiction, not territorial jurisdiction. Since jurisdictional defects go to the root and cannot be waived, the reassessment order dated 19.02.2024 was declared a nullity. The CIT(A)’s order was set aside and the reassessment was quashed in full, with the merits left open.
