Kamaraj Priya Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
JAO Vs FAO- Reassessment Falls Today, May Rise Tomorrow: Revival Allowed if SC Changes Legal Position – Faceless Mandate Prevails—But ITAT Keeps Door Open for Revenue Revival on Future SC Verdict- Reassessment Falls Today, May Rise Tomorrow: Revival Allowed if SC Changes Legal Position
Assessee challenged JAO jurisdiction in issuing notice u/s148 dated 28.03.2024. Tribunal noted from the assessment order that the impugned 148 notice was issued by ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur (JAO). Tribunal examined CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 which mandates that issuance of 148 notices & reassessment u/s147 shall be via automated allocation in faceless manner by NFAC u/s144B. Since the notice was manually issued by JAO, it violated the faceless reassessment scheme & therefore lacked jurisdiction.
Tribunal relied on Telangana HC in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, Ta Infra, Sri Venkatramana Reddy Patloola, Deepanjan Roy, Bombay HC in Hexaware Technologies Ltd, & Delhi HC discussions on similar issues. Tribunal also took note that the Supreme Court dismissed Revenue’s SLP in Deepanjan Roy, though such dismissal does not constitute declaration of law under Article 141.
However, jurisdictional Madras HC in TVS Credit Services Ltd Vs DCIT held that only FAO can issue the 148 notice & any notice issued by JAO is invalid. Para 8 of the Madras HC judgment clarifies that while notices are quashed, liberty is kept open to Revenue to seek revival if the Apex Court later reverses Hexaware.
