Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Income Tax Officer, Salem vs Annamalai Bhagyalakshmi, Salem on 27 January, 2026
"TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
- BENCH: CHENNAT x Vee, Tear ward & Waal 7h, ander qe BEFORE MS. PAOMAVATHY 8, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRS sete KOM MAR GIRT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SATA No S880 /Chny/ 2025 we Aasessmeant Year: 2020-21 ITO, WeiGd} w. | Annamelal Bhagyalakshmi, Salern 135, Chinneri Vayalkadu, Kulaidaigounder, Thottam, Salem, Tamil Nadu-636009 (PAN: ANBPB 2234 P| crienreily Appellant) | | (rey Respondent) aro ay RIT Sy Agpailant a ; (None yeaa # HTS /Revenue by | >| Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam Addl, CIT gaara Date of Hearing > | 21.01.2026 eleorehianhtw /Date of pronouncement © | 27.01.2026 PER MANU KUMAS GIRE. JM:
The captioned appeal by the Revenue Is arising out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of (ncome Tax (Appea is}/NFAC, Delhi dated ~ aN AY SOURS pe BAP EPEE SER COP 15.09.2025 for AY £0e0°24.
ax Brief Facts of the Case: In this case, specific information avaliable with the department under Risk Managemet Strategy formulated by the Board suggest that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. ITA No.3380/Chny/2028 (AY 2020-213 ITO VS ANNAMALAT 17,24,250/- in HDSC Sank account, made HDFC credit card payments of Rs, 587183/- and SQ credit card payments amounting to Rs. 32,75,291/- during the financial yea e-20 relevant to the assessment year 2020-
21.However, the assesses fas neither Sled return u/s. 139 of the IT Act nor fled return im ressonse to the notice a/s. 148 of the IT Act. Order u/s. et i Bs s WAS passed by the Jurisdictional Officer. subsequently, case of che assesses was transferred to Faceless Assessment Unk for canipletion of assessment proceedings in faceless manner,
3. Noné appeared for the assessee, At the outset, we note that the assessee has taken jurisdictional ground No.4 as under:
Whether, on th law, the Qe cy section I48. fs the legislative section 148 of the bringing the © ciscumstances of the case and in 3 g the Notices issued by JAQ under ane at the same were consistent with ne when the | ne vers to issue the notice under Nad remained intact with the JAO even after Assessment Scheme.
4, Upan the jurisdictional grounds 1 to 3, the Le CIT(A) held as under:
n of the ground of sopeal, the submissions Srovisign oF section 151A of the Act, CBDT a é : US. 2022 and respectfully following the & Jurisdictional Madras High Court and the appellate Aut : ec 'AT, Chennai, I find merit in the appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, 148 p ee issued on 29.03.2024 by the JAO fs ar Invalia notice and same is therefore quashed. If Is settled principle of | ance the foundation of a proceeding is treated vold ab initio, he perstructure & Bulle upon it cannot stand and is bound to Fall, 7 Fe, | in the present case, the assessment order passed under section: 1a' dated 28.02.2025 shall also not survive On careful co en record, & NotYication juggment of rhe ITA No.2g80/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-213 ITO VS ANNAMALAI and the sane 6 Ground Nos, ise ts
5. The Ld. DR fo jurisdictional High Court in the case of TVS Credit Services [td dated 24.06, 2025,
6. We have heard the submission of id.OR and perused the recard and on surt ie the case of TVS Credit gone through the juris Services Lid dafead 24.08.2085,
7. The Hon'ble jurisc case > of TYS Credit S Na. 13336 of 2023 6 sing Officer & 50) is issues the notice and it : iaf & should' oe issued Gy the Faceless @840) Another learned Single Judge in 6 S025 in WP Ao 22402 of 2024 and batch HISEICE ie fof MS cass, | Sar was eld fay | the Bombay High Court in HEXBWae AN Assistant Commissioner of EG nme 2 a g ined hat | if was mandatory for the FAC do issue poxce anc issuance of satice by JAC would make fie fa Oe 4 : :
© Judge derearier directed ife matter to be he Cher Justice Sor constituting a Divisron aoe Se aivergent wews. if is, therefore, ail were is sted Berbers us foday.
placed & Bere & fase MSkes 'as afd dows Jn Hexaware Technologies Ys if RagenEnt & was authored By one of us shat lf & menoatory for ihe FAO to issue fhe TEA No. o3e0/Chny/2025 fA 2020-24) TfO ¥S ANNAMALAT Aa av idem Sat the jaw as gid owes Lid (suore) wil apohe Soliton Ge 'al. Aowever. submits that aS AOE atesol Ge few as Bid down in cues Lay & sya and that there is a ? fled aga in Ee order and. Judgment in oh Gakans COW : Ageeanal SofichorGeneral. if af there & ve boil Therefore, the law as nave Tectraowes Lay (supra) applies.
Wf the Apex Court reverses the judgment ccna i&y (Suere, parties wil! be accion OF Me Joey Court & & sang ooes al nights eee contentions of parties, INCHING eds s aoely wi anus is Court #7 case te Revenue "pes SUS ir is . ise Apex Couwt for rewvel of fhese fe Hogs issued an ) these peltons are quashed ae set 4 .
SIN Goes oy TAG CONS:
involved se Be fR3 Ms, duart fan Me issue of notices issued Y of SO ee oy mses of Me issues which were if Sexeuxere Techooogies Lig (supra) are < ae fe issues raised in Nexaware 'Suara) are So! covered, thase are kept edt at Sh AODOONSS Stage.
iG Fe Fecten Ow 6 &Beny as poisd above, all petitions stand oe a Bodcailey oF P RSSOS5EE: ; ere wil be Ao TTA Ne. 3380/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) 1TO VS ANNAMALAI es ny toa og 8, Therefore, resoen Ssowing the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Coun, we modify the order of Id.CIT(A}, in the fight of Para No.8 of the judgment of (he Jun riscic ional High Court. We also keep open of rights and contentions of parties including liberty to approach this bench, in case, the Revenue succeeds hevore the Apex Court for revival of the present Appeal. In the case of revival, the revenue has a right to argue grounds ag raised in anoeal grounds.
5. In the result, appeal Med by the revenue is dismissed in terms above.
Order pronounced if She apen court on 27" day of January, 2026 at Chennai.
(PAD MAVATHY Ss) (MANU ¥ KUMAR GIRI) aan veer / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER sarfaw geer/JUDICIAL MEMBER gene/Chennal, feeie/Dated: 27 JANUARY, 2026. SNOOP wer & ofertas (Copy cas 1, afenil/Appeliant 2, yardi/Respondent 3, aezangqad/ciT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4, Burfugiafayor 5, monte GF