Balaguru Rajamanickam Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Late by Days, Lost for Years: Time-Barred 148 Notice Quashed- Wrong Clock & Wrong Officer: Double Knock-Out for Revenue
In Balaguru Rajamanickam Vs. ITO 9ITA Nos.2827 & 2828/Chny/2025, AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17, order dated 31.12.2025, Chennai ITAT allowed both appeals & quashed reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
For AY 2015-16, Assessee had not filed return & AO reopened assessment alleging unexplained cash deposits & credits. Tribunal held that notice u/s 148 dated 26.04.2022 was time-barred, as limitation under 1st proviso to s.149(1) expired on 31.03.2022, with only a 7-day extended window up to 07.04.2022 under 4th proviso. Since order u/s 148A(d) was passed only on 21.04.2022, reopening was beyond limitation. Consequently, assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B was held bad in law & quashed.
For AY 2016-17, Tribunal found a jurisdictional defect under faceless regime. While notice u/s 148 & order u/s 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional AO, the reassessment order was passed by NFAC Assessment Unit, which was held impermissible following Madras HC in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT (relying on Hexaware Technologies principle). Such split jurisdiction rendered reassessment invalid. Accordingly, reassessment for AY 2016-17 was also quashed, with liberty to Revenue as per law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
