TVS Credit Services Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court heard multiple petitions arising from conflicting views of two Single Judges regarding the validity of income tax notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO). In an earlier order dated 20.12.2024, one Single Judge held that issuance of notice by the JAO was valid and not necessarily required to be issued by the FAO. However, another Single Judge, by order dated 21.04.2025, in W.P. No. 22402 of 2024 and connected cases, followed the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, holding that such notices must mandatorily be issued by the FAO, and those issued by the JAO would be invalid.
Owing to this divergence, the matter was referred to a Division Bench. The Bench, relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd.—authored by one of the present Judges (the Chief Justice)—reaffirmed that notices must mandatorily be issued by the FAO, and those issued by the JAO are invalid. Counsel for the assessees concurred with the application of the Hexaware ruling, while the Revenue, represented by the Additional Solicitor-General, opposed it, informing that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed before the Supreme Court, which is yet to be heard.
