आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ 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 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These four appeals are filed by Smt. Sukesini Kumili (“the assessee”) feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) for the A.Ys 2015-16 and 2016-17, all dated 16.07.2025. Since inter-related issues are involved in all these four appeals, for the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common consolidated order.

ITA No.1536/Hyd/2025:

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

3. 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 2015-16 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), dated 27.02.2024. The Ld. CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that under ground no. 2 of the appeal, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In this regards the Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were 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. In this regards, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 06.04.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both the 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 various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Courts, 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 read with section 144 and 144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the legal issue raised by the assessee is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., in the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Therefore, this issue may be kept open till the outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 06.04.2022, which is to the following effect:

7. On perusal of above, it is evident that the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by JAO on 06.04.2022. We have also gone through the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, which is to the following effect:

8. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the notice under section 148 of the Act was also issued by the JAO on 06.04.2022. Further, we have carefully