Vijay Kumar Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
No Cure for Jurisdictional Defect: Post-29.03.2022 s.148 Only by FAO- ITAT Hyderabad Quashes Reassessment: JAO Lacked Jurisdiction to Issue s.148 Notice Post-Faceless Regime
Hyderabad ITAT ‘A’ Bench, in Shri Vijay Kumar Patil vs. ITO (ITA No.1328/Hyd/2025, AY 2017-18, order dated 24.12.2025), allowed the assessee’s appeal on a pure jurisdictional ground and quashed the entire reassessment.
The Tribunal held that the order u/s 148A(d) dated 27.03.2024 and notice u/s 148 dated 28.03.2024 were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), whereas, pursuant to CBDT Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 (u/s 151A), such actions must be undertaken only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Consequently, the JAO inherently lacked jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings void ab initio.
Rejecting the Revenue’s objection based on s.124(3) and reliance on DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (SC), the Tribunal drew a clear distinction between territorial/administrative jurisdiction and inherent lack of authority. It reiterated that waiver or participation cannot cure a foundational jurisdictional defect.
The Bench followed binding precedent of the Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and its own coordinate bench decisions, including Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri and Kotha Kanthaiah, to hold that reassessment actions post-29.03.2022 cannot be initiated by the JAO.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the NFAC order and reassessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B, the Tribunal kept liberty open to the Revenue to seek revival subject to the outcome of pending SLPs before the Supreme Court (including Hexaware Technology Ltd.). Since the appeal succeeded on legal grounds, other issues were left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
