Reassessment Notice Issued by Wrong Authority – ITAT Quashes Entire 148 Proceedings Following P&H HC

Harmit Kaur Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)

Assessee challenged the very jurisdiction of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2024 was issued by the Jurisdictional AO, even though CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 (issued u/s 151A) mandates that ONLY NFAC/NPAC can issue notices u/s 148 & 148A.

CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation without deciding this pure legal ground.

Before the ITAT, Assessee relied on binding judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in:

• Jatinder Singh Bhangu (19.07.2024)
• Jasjit Singh (29.07.2024)
• Satpal Kaur (01.10.2025)

All these decisions categorically held that:

• After 29.03.2022, only NFAC/NPAC has jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148.
• Notice by Jurisdictional AO is void ab initio.
• Departmental letters/circulars cannot override statutory notification.
• Assessment proceedings commence from the moment the 148 notice is issued, so faceless scheme applies from that stage.

In the present case:

• The notice u/s 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional AO.
• The Department admitted this fact before the Tribunal.
• Thus, the notice & the entire reassessment were without authority of law.

ITAT held:

• The CBDT Notification is mandatory.
• Binding High Court rulings must be followed.
• The notice is invalid, hence the entire reassessment order dated 10.03.2025 is non est.
• The CIT(A) erred in not deciding this legal issue.

Result:

• Notice u/s 148 quashed
• Reassessment order quashed
• Appeal allowed in full

When law requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner – or not at all.