Validity of S.148 Notice Issued by JAO Instead of Faceless AO Remanded for Fresh Adjudication: ITAT [Read Order]
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings initiated through notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer required fresh adjudication.
![Validity of S.148 Notice Issued by JAO Instead of Faceless AO Remanded for Fresh Adjudication: ITAT [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/05/31/2138637-validity-s148-notice-issued-jao-instead-faceless-ao-remanded-fresh-adjudication-itat-taxscan.webp "Validity of S.148 Notice Issued by JAO Instead of Faceless AO Remanded for Fresh Adjudication: ITAT [Read Order]")
The Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after observing that the assessee’s challenge to notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer required reconsideration in light of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. The assessee, Madhuri Vishnu Dadure, had...
The Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after observing that the assessee’s challenge to notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer required reconsideration in light of pending proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The assessee, Madhuri Vishnu Dadure, had filed return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.3.62 lakh. Based on information regarding cash deposits of Rs.87.15 lakh in a co-operative bank account, reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act were initiated.
During reassessment proceedings, the AO treated cash deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act for failure to satisfactorily explain the source of deposits.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged validity of notice issued under Sections 148/148A(d) of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in view of CBDT Notification No.18/2022. However, the CIT(A) rejected the contention and upheld the addition made by the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that under Section 151A of the Act and the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, notice under Section 148 of the Act was required to be issued through the Faceless Assessing Officer and therefore reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer were void ab initio. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024).
However, the Revenue contended that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer validly exercised jurisdiction over the assessee and that procedural irregularities, if any, would not invalidate reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Khettra Mohan Roy (Accountant Member) observed that the issue relating to validity of notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in place of the Faceless Assessing Officer was presently pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal further observed that in similar circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ITO v. Piyush Tushar Paralikar had remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The assessee’s appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
