Vijay Kumar Kamdar Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Assessee, an individual from Adilabad, challenged the order of CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi dated 12-03-2025 confirming reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on the ground that the notice u/s 148A(b) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) & not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated under the Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authority Scheme, 2022.
Facts
The JAO issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 03-03-2023, passed order u/s 148A(d) on 22-03-2023, & issued notice u/s 148 on 23-03-2023, all in his own name.
Assessee contended that:
- After introduction of Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme 2022, only Faceless Officers could issue such notices.
- The JAO lacked jurisdiction, rendering the entire reassessment void ab initio.
- The escaped income alleged (₹ 15.84 lakh) was below ₹ 50 lakh; hence reopening beyond 3 years was barred by limitation.
- Reliance was placed on the Telangana High Court decision in Kotha Kanthaiah v. ITO (W.P. No. 344/2025, 24-04-2025) & Kanakala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (156 taxmann.com 478), holding that reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional officers post-Scheme 2022 are invalid.
Revenue’s stand
Department submitted that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP – Hexaware Technologies Ltd., hence the Tribunal should keep the matter open until final adjudication.
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
