आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.140/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd Minarpally (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 05.11.2024 for the A.Y, 2016-17.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground of appeal:

4. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) has submitted that additional grounds so raised is admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC).

The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any objection for admission of the additional grounds. The prayer for admission of additional grounds are being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional grounds are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed for Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), dated 11.03.2024. The Ld. CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, we observe that under additional ground the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 as well as the order under section 148A(d) of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 22.03.2023 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, issued under section 151A(1) and (2) of the Act, mandates that with effect from 29.03.2022, all notices under section 148 of the Act must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on the order of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO & 2 Others, Writ Petition Nos 25903 of 2023, dated 14.09.2023, the Ld. AR argued that when a notice is issued by an authority having no jurisdiction in law, such notice is void ab initio, and all consequential proceedings stand vitiated. He therefore submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequent assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. In alternate submission, the Ld. DR submitted that the issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore the issue may be kept open until decided by the Supreme Court.

8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record including the case law relied upon. With regard to the legal issu