Krishnaveni Kokkula Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, post introduction of ‘Faceless Jurisdiction of Income tax Authorities Scheme, 2022, is bad and illegal in law. Accordingly, order passed thereon is quashed and set aside.
Facts- AO observed that the assessee, who during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, viz. cash deposits of Rs. 10 lac or more in a savings bank account L: Rs. 47,80,000/; and payment of consideration for the purchase of an immovable property on which tax was deducted at source u/s. 194IA of the Act: Rs. 59,75,600/-, but had not filed her return of income, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act.
As the assessee did not file her return of income in compliance to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, i.e., Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), was constrained to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment u/s. 144 of the Act.
As is discernible from the assessment order, the AO vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 12/03/2024, after rejecting the assessee’s explanation that the cash deposit of Rs. 46 lacs made during the subject year in her Savings bank account with HDFC Bank Limited, was sourced out of the cash gift received from her spouse, viz. Shri Dayanand Kokila, determined her income at Rs. 46 lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without success.
