Siva Kumar Dhanapal Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In this appeal, Assessee challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 by JAO, contending that after notification of Faceless Reassessment Scheme u/s 151A on 29.03.2022, issuance of notice u/s 148A(b)/148 must be only through NFAC by automated allocation. Since the notice was manually issued by JAO, Assessee argued that entire reopening is void ab initio. Assessee relied on binding jurisdictional Madras HC Division Bench ruling in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd (24.06.2025) which followed Hexaware Technologies Ltd (Bom HC) holding that notice issued by JAO is illegal.
Revenue argued that JAO & NFAC have concurrent jurisdiction, relied on Delhi HC, Calcutta HC & Single Bench ruling of Madras HC. However Tribunal noted that the Division Bench of Madras HC has already reversed the Single Bench and aligned with Bombay, Telangana, Gujarat & P&H High Courts holding that notices u/s 148A/148 must mandatorily be issued by Faceless Authority.
Tribunal observed that the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 was issued by JAO. Since faceless scheme is mandatory post 29.03.2022, notice issued by JAO violates Rule of Law & is invalid. Consequently reassessment order dated 28.01.2025 framed by Assessment Unit is held null. Tribunal therefore allowed appeal on legal issue itself & did not examine additions on merits.
