Thangamuthu Balakrishnan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer post Faceless Assessment instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre is void and invalid. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
Facts- The assessee is an individual carrying on the business of manufacturing and exporting of clothes and garments. The case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was reopened by way of an order passed u/s.148A(d) of the Act and a notice u/s.148 of the Act, both dated 31.03.2022, issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Tirupur. Thereafter, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, by making an addition of (a) Rs.8,28,250/- towards business income and (b)Rs.87,71,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who dismissed the same and against which, the assessee had preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of TVS Credit Services Ltd. held that in the case in hand, the JAO had issued notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 14.03.2022 followed by order u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022 and followed by notice u/s.148 dated 31.03.2022 which impugned notices have been issued despite faceless scheme was notified by Central Government on 29.03.2022 pursuant to section 151A of the Act, making it mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s.148A(b), 148A(d) as well as 148 of the Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impugned notices especially issued u/s.148 dated 31.03.2022 is found to be invalid and bad in law, since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the ‘Rule of Law’; which impugned action of the JAO vitiates the reopening of assessment for AY 2018-19 by issuance of impugned notice dated 31.03.2022 u/s.148 of the Act and is therefore held to be illegal and bad in law and therefore, assessment order dated 16.03.2023 is held to be null in eyes of law; and the assessee succeeds, on the legal issue which is held in favour of the assessee and therefore, we are inclined not to go into the merits of the addition made by the NFAC.
