Sudhaker Munigeti Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Hyderabad Tribunal examined legality of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional AO (JAO) despite the statutory mandate of the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme, 2022. Assessee had not filed return. JAO issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 28.02.2023, passed order u/s 148A(d) on 29.03.2023 & issued notice u/s 148 on the same day. Assessee challenged jurisdiction, arguing that post-2022, reassessment can be initiated only by the Faceless AO, relying heavily on Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, subsequent Telangana HC ruling (WP 29541/2024, dated 30.04.2025), & Supreme Court directions in Ashish Agarwal & Rajeev Bansal regarding surviving limitation periods.
Assessee contended that (i) notice was barred by limitation, (ii) notice was issued by JAO instead of Faceless AO, & (iii) entire procedure violated the substituted scheme of reassessment. Revenue argued that Ashish Agarwal permitted treating old 148 notices as 148A(b) notices & therefore procedure followed by AO was valid.
Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the Telangana High Court in Kotha Kanthaiah (WP 344/2025, dated 24.04.2025) where identical notices issued by JAO (instead of Faceless AO) were declared void for lack of jurisdiction. Tribunal reproduced & relied on detailed observations from the High Court, including nationwide judicial consensus (Bombay, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Gauhati, Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Calcutta). Tribunal held that after NFAC jurisdiction was notified u/s 144B read with Notification 18/2022, JAO had no authority to issue 148A(b) or 148 notices, rendering the notice without jurisdiction & void ab initio.
