आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ (cid:1)यायपीठ, चे(cid:9)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:1)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:10), (cid:11)ाियक सद(cid:17) एव ं

(cid:1)ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:9) के सम(cid:27)

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1165 & 1166/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:14)रणवष/(cid:14) Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Manickam Chettiar Velmurugan, v. The ITO, 59/21 Nisa Castle, Non Corporate Circle-19(1), Balakrishnan Street, Chennai.

West Mambalam, Chennai-600 083.

[PAN: AFPPV 6974 A (अपीलाथ(cid:22)/Appellant) ((cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22)/Respondent) अपीलाथ(cid:22) क(cid:26) ओर स / े Appellant by : Mr.Hithesh, Advocate (cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22) क(cid:26) ओर स े /Respondent by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक(cid:26)तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणाक(cid:26)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, both dated 28.02.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2015-16 and 2016-17.

2. Since both parties agree that the legal issue raised in both the appeals are identical, we will first take up the Appeal for AY 2015-16. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to additional grounds of appeal preferred by it wherein assessee has raised a legal issue challenging the impugned notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act ‘) dated 25.07.2022 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 as bad in law, since the impugned notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (herein after ‘JAO’) and not by the NFAC, and hence consequent passing of the assessment order by the NFAC dated 15.05.2023 also is null in the eyes of law.

3. The assessee raised the following additional grounds in ITA No.1165/Chny/2025 for AY 2015-16:

1. Whether the Learned Assessing Officer erred in law in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 25.07.2022, despite lacking jurisdiction under the faceless reassessment regime prescribed under Section 151A, which mandates that such notices be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer?

2. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are void ab initio, having been commenced without authority of law, as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT, W.P. No. 22402 of 2024?

3. Whether the entire reassessment proceedings stand vitiated for want of jurisdiction, the initiation itself being contrary to the statutory scheme and binding judicial precedent, rendering all consequential actions unsustainable in law?

The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the

time of hearing.

4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148 dated

25.07.2022, is invalid and bad in law being issued by the Jurisdictional

Assessing Officer (herein after ‘JAO’) which is not in accordance with Sec.

151/151A of the Act read with the faceless Scheme notified by CBDT on

29 March 2022 for assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147/issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act or for conducting of inquiry or issuance of show cause notice or passing of order u/s.148A of the Act or sanction for issuance of notice under section 151 of the Act. Further, according to the Ld AR, in exercise of the powers conferred u/s.151A of the Act, CBDT had issued a notification dated 29.03.2022 [after laying the same before each House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (herein after ‘the Scheme’). And that the Scheme provides that (a) the assessment, reassessment or re-computation u/s.147 of the Act and (b) the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act shall be through automated allo