आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ (cid:1)यायपीठ, च(cid:9)े ई।

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

(cid:1)ी अिमताभ शु(cid:24)ा, लेखा सद(cid:9) के सम(cid:27)

BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/Chny/2024 िनधा(cid:14)रण वष(cid:14)/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sappahire Educational & v. The ITO, Charitable Trust, Exemptions Ward, 14/4, Arabi Street, Nidur, Trichy.

Mayiladuthurai, Thanjavur-612 101.

[PAN: AALTS 1999 P (अपीलाथ(cid:22)/Appellant) ((cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:22) क(cid:26) ओर स / े Appellant by : Mr.N. Arjun Raj, Advocate (cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22) क(cid:26) ओर स े /Respondent by : Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक(cid:26)तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणाक(cid:26)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.02.2025 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, dated 01.08.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2018-19 against the quantum assessment and against the penalty order levied u/s.271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘).

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee drew our attention to grounds of appeal preferred by it in quantum assessment [ITA No.2416/Chny/2024] wherein assessee has raised a legal issue challenging the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘JAO‘) issuing notice u/s.148/148A(d) of the Act dated 31.03.2022.

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 would completely defiance the prescription of law / procedure in relation there to and hence ought to have appreciated that in the absence of valid foundation for issuance of notice under Section 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 (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. In this regard, the Ld AR, explained that in exercise of the powers conferred u/s.151A of the Act, CBDT 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" (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 assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. Therefore, according to Ld AR, since the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment and contented that the legal issue raised by it has been answered in favor of the assessee by following Hon’ble High Courts:

1) Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay)

(HC).

2) Sushila Sureshbabu Malge v. ITO reported in 164 taxmann.com 633 (Bombay) (HC).

3) Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of Ind