A notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by an Income Tax Officer is invalid and non-curable if the assessee's returned income exceeds the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, as jurisdiction in such cases vests solely in the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner.

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 19/11/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had set aside the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 14/03/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“ LEGAL GROUND

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lei CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that Ld. JAO erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 148 merely based on information received without conducting independent enquiry which is bad in law and required to be quashed.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT{A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that Lei. JAO erred in passing Re-Assessment order without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in response to return filed by the appellant in the relevant year. Re-Assessment Proceedings needs to Quashed on this sole ground only.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Re assessment was without jurisdiction as the notice u/ s 148(A) was issued by non-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas in view of the Returned of Income, the Jurisdiction was with Deputy/ Assistant commissioner of Income Tax and the consequent order u/s.148 (d) and Notice u/s.148 was issued by Income Tax Officer instead of Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Order u/s 148A(d) dated 28.04.2022 & Notice u/s 148 dated 28.04.2022 was issued by Ld JAO and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer ("FAQ") as is required by the provision of Section 151A of the Act. That the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO u/ s 148 is in violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions as stipulated in Notification No.18/2022 dated 29th March, 2022.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal without affording personal hearing to the appellant as mandated by Rule 12(3) of the faceless appeal Scheme.

GROUNDS ON MERIT

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that Ld. JAO erred in making addition of Rs. 55,79,524/- under provision of section SOC of Income Tax Act, 1961 arbitrarily and purely on presumption, assumption and surmises basis for the alleged capital gain on transfer of land and hence liable to be set aside.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that Ld. JAO erred in making addition of Rs. 55,79,524/- under provision of section SOC of Income Tax Act, 1961 being difference between Sale consideration and stamp duty value without appreciating fact that the property was distress sale & was illegally encroached by hutments and various drawbacks.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that Ld. JAO made addition of Selling Expenses of Rs 6,84,000/- without appreciating the fact that selling expenses were paid in the form of Brokerage Expenses, Registration Expenses, Advocate fees etc through banking channel at the time of sell.

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) grossly erred in set-asiding the order u/s 251(1) without appreciati