INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Haricharan Rathore, Vs. ITO, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, MP MP (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: CSQPR0999M Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 21/01/2026

O R D E R

1. The appeal in ITA No. 472/AGR/2025 for AY 2020-21, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 09.09.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the preliminary issue to be decided is whether the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment by Jurisdictional Assessment Officer(JAO) as against Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) could be considered as valid. This goes to the root of the matter and hence I deem it fit to address this preliminary issue first.

3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the order under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 22.03.2024 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 22.03.2024 was issued by the JAO. This issue is no longer in res- integra in view of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Loganathan Dhandapani vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2240/Chny/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated 14.08.2025. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:-

“ 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to grounds of appeal preferred by it wherein assessee has raised alegal issue challenging the impugned notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act „) dated31.03.2022 as bad in law and hence consequent passing of theassessment order by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as „JAO„) also is null in the eyes of law.

3. Ground No.5 is reproduced as under:

5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the passing of the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeundersection 148 of the Act, the consequential re-

assessment should be considered as nullity in law.

4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148 dated 31.03.2022, 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 allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in Section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making asse