Smt. Lingamgunta Adilaxmi Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Hyderabad ITAT ‘B’ Bench, in a common consolidated order dated 24.12.2025, allowed four appeals—Smt. Lingamgunta Adilaxmi (ITA 1317/Hyd/2025, AY 2015-16), Shri Raghu Alekh Barli (ITA 915/Hyd/2025, AY 2018-19), Sanzyme Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 1487/Hyd/2025, AY 2019-20) and Shri Bikaram Pushpender (ITA 1606/Hyd/2025, AY 2018-19)—by quashing reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 29.03.2022.
The Tribunal held that pursuant to CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued u/s 151A, all actions u/s 147/148 on or after 29.03.2022 must be undertaken only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). In these cases, the orders u/s 148A(d) and notices u/s 148 were admittedly issued by the JAO, rendering them void ab initio for inherent lack of jurisdiction.
Rejecting the Revenue’s objection based on s.124(3) and reliance on DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (SC), the Bench reiterated that s.124(3) applies to territorial/administrative jurisdiction and not to inherent lack of authority. Participation or failure to object within 30 days cannot cure a foundational jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal followed binding precedent of the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and its own coordinate bench rulings including Kotha Kanthaiah and Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri. Consequently, the NFAC orders and consequential reassessments were set aside in all four appeals.
However, keeping in line with High Court directions, the Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue/assessees to seek revival, subject to the outcome of pending SLPs before the Supreme Court (including Hexaware Technology Ltd.). Since the appeals succeeded on the legal issue, other grounds were left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
