Your s.148 notice came from your own local officer, not from the faceless unit. Does that matter?
In Bombay, yes. After the CBDT scheme notified under s.151A on 29 March 2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer acting through automated allocation can issue a reassessment notice. There is no concurrent jurisdiction, and a notice from the jurisdictional officer was quashed.
Decided by the High Court (Bombay High Court — K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale JJ) on 2024-05-03, reported as [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay); Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 (Bom). It bears on section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 149, section 151, section 151A, section 144B, section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
This is a check anyone can run in thirty seconds: look at who signed the notice. If it came from your ward officer rather than through the faceless system, and your High Court follows Hexaware, the notice may not survive at all — regardless of how strong the department's case on the merits is.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Hexaware Technologies, an information technology company, had claimed deduction under s.80JJAA, supported by Form 10DA and disclosed in its tax audit report. The Assessing Officer had asked for details of Chapter VI-A deductions during the original assessment, received them, and allowed the claim by an order under s.143(3) dated 30 November 2017; the deduction had been allowed consistently since assessment year 2010-11. On 27 August 2022 the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued a notice under s.148 for assessment year 2015-16, the alleged escapement being Rs 6,54,04,038 on the s.80JJAA claim and Rs 6,90,80,180 on an excess claim of foreign exchange loss. The notice bore no Document Identification Number. The company challenged it by writ petition, contending that none of the jurisdictional conditions in ss.147, 148, 148A, 149, 151 and 151A had been met — among them that after the scheme notified under s.151A on 29 March 2022 only a Faceless Assessing Officer acting through automated allocation could issue such a notice.
The notice was quashed on several independent grounds, of which the faceless point is only one. The Court answered eight issues (para 47). TOLA did not apply to assessment year 2015-16 and a notice issued after 31 March 2021 does not travel back to the original date. The notice of 27 August 2022 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to s.149. It was invalid for want of a Document Identification Number. It was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to s.151A and the scheme of 29 March 2022: specific jurisdiction having been assigned to the JAO or the FAO under the scheme, there is no concurrent jurisdiction between them, either for issuing the notice or for making the assessment (paras 35 and 36). The alleged escapement was not represented by an asset, expenditure or an entry in the books as s.149(1)(b) requires, a question about the correctness of a Chapter VI-A deduction being none of those (paras 40 and 41). The reopening was a change of opinion, all the material having been before the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, and so was without jurisdiction (paras 42 and 43). Where the deduction had been allowed consistently in earlier years on identical facts, the officer could not believe income had escaped (para 44). The only issue decided against the company was the eighth: the Court declined to hold that the sanctioning authority had failed to apply its mind, so the approval was valid (para 46). Rule was made absolute and the notice and consequential proceedings were quashed (para 48).
On the faceless question the Court read the scheme of 29 March 2022 as mandatory: paragraph 3 provides that the issue of notice under s.148 shall be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, so the scheme covers issuing the notice and not only the assessment. Where specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either officer, that assignment operates to the exclusion of the other; accepting concurrent jurisdiction would not merely cause chaos but would render the whole faceless proceeding redundant, because an assessee could then make submissions to the JAO on a notice issued by the FAO and the reverse (paras 35 and 36). Internal departmental material relied on by the Revenue — the CBDT guidelines of 1 August 2022, an ITBA step-by-step document, and an Office Memorandum of 20 February 2023 — could not displace a notified scheme; a manual explaining how to use the portal is not a statement of the department's legal position, and if the procedure needed changing the scheme itself had to be amended (paras 34 and 38). The Calcutta High Court's decision in Triton Overseas was distinguished on the ground that it was decided without reference to the scheme at all, which is not mentioned in it, so it could not be treated as a precedent on the point; the Telangana High Court's view in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, that notices issued by JAOs are invalid, was agreed with (para 39). On change of opinion the Court adopted the passage from its own decision in Siemens Financial Services: the officer has power to reassess but not to review, and change of opinion is an in-built check on abuse of that power (para 43).
there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIn Bombay, yes. After the CBDT scheme notified under s.151A on 29 March 2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer acting through automated allocation can issue a reassessment notice. There is no concurrent jurisdiction, and a notice from the jurisdictional officer was quashed. This was decided by the High Court (Bombay High Court — K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale JJ) and bears on section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 149, section 151, section 151A, section 144B, section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay); Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 (Bom). This is a check anyone can run in thirty seconds: look at who signed the notice. If it came from your ward officer rather than through the faceless system, and your High Court follows Hexaware, the notice may not survive at all — regardless of how strong the department's case on the merits is. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Look at the issuing officer's designation on the s.148 notice and on the DIN.
Hexaware Technologies, an information technology company, had claimed deduction under s.80JJAA, supported by Form 10DA and disclosed in its tax audit report. The Assessing Officer had asked for details of Chapter VI-A deductions during the original assessment, received them, and allowed the claim by an order under s.143(3) dated 30 November 2017; the deduction had been allowed consistently since assessment year 2010-11. On 27 August 2022 the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued a notice under s.148 for assessment year 2015-16, the alleged escapement being Rs 6,54,04,038 on the s.80JJAA claim and Rs 6,90,80,180 on an excess claim of foreign exchange loss. The notice bore no Document Identification Number. The company challenged it by writ petition, contending that none of the jurisdictional conditions in ss.147, 148, 148A, 149, 151 and 151A had been met — among them that after the scheme notified under s.151A on 29 March 2022 only a Faceless Assessing Officer acting through automated allocation could issue such a notice. The matter was decided on 2024-05-03 by the High Court (Bombay High Court — K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale JJ). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The notice was quashed on several independent grounds, of which the faceless point is only one. The Court answered eight issues (para 47). TOLA did not apply to assessment year 2015-16 and a notice issued after 31 March 2021 does not travel back to the original date. The notice of 27 August 2022 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to s.149. It was invalid for want of a Document Identification Number. It was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to s.151A and the scheme of 29 March 2022: specific jurisdiction having been assigned to the JAO or the FAO under the scheme, there is no concurrent jurisdiction between them, either for issuing the notice or for making the assessment (paras 35 and 36). The alleged escapement was not represented by an asset, expenditure or an entry in the books as s.149(1)(b) requires, a question about the correctness of a Chapter VI-A deduction being none of those (paras 40 and 41). The reopening was a change of opinion, all the material having been before the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, and so was without jurisdiction (paras 42 and 43). Where the deduction had been allowed consistently in earlier years on identical facts, the officer could not believe income had escaped (para 44). The only issue decided against the company was the eighth: the Court declined to hold that the sanctioning authority had failed to apply its mind, so the approval was valid (para 46). Rule was made absolute and the notice and consequential proceedings were quashed (para 48).
On the faceless question the Court read the scheme of 29 March 2022 as mandatory: paragraph 3 provides that the issue of notice under s.148 shall be through automated allocation and in a faceless manner, so the scheme covers issuing the notice and not only the assessment. Where specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either officer, that assignment operates to the exclusion of the other; accepting concurrent jurisdiction would not merely cause chaos but would render the whole faceless proceeding redundant, because an assessee could then make submissions to the JAO on a notice issued by the FAO and the reverse (paras 35 and 36). Internal departmental material relied on by the Revenue — the CBDT guidelines of 1 August 2022, an ITBA step-by-step document, and an Office Memorandum of 20 February 2023 — could not displace a notified scheme; a manual explaining how to use the portal is not a statement of the department's legal position, and if the procedure needed changing the scheme itself had to be amended (paras 34 and 38). The Calcutta High Court's decision in Triton Overseas was distinguished on the ground that it was decided without reference to the scheme at all, which is not mentioned in it, so it could not be treated as a precedent on the point; the Telangana High Court's view in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, that notices issued by JAOs are invalid, was agreed with (para 39). On change of opinion the Court adopted the passage from its own decision in Siemens Financial Services: the officer has power to reassess but not to review, and change of opinion is an in-built check on abuse of that power (para 43). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment order" The decision followed or applied Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO [2023] 156 taxmann.com 178 / 295 Taxman 652 (Telangana); Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2022] 443 ITR 49 (Bom.); Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 457 ITR 647 (Bom.); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 367 (Bom.); Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. Asstt. CIT [2023] 459 ITR 100 (Bom.); Pr. CIT v. Tata Medical Centre Trust [2023] 459 ITR 155 (Cal.); Sofitel Realty LLP v. ITO (TDS) [2023] 457 ITR 18 (Bom.).
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-05-03 and is reported as [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); [2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay); Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 (Bom). Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 149, section 151, section 151A, section 144B, section 80JJAA, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The notice was quashed on several independent grounds, of which the faceless point is only one. The Court answered eight issues (para 47). TOLA did not apply to assessment year 2015-16 and a notice issued after 31 March 2021 does not travel back to the original date. The notice of 27 August 2022 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to s.149. It was invalid for want of a Document Identification Number. It was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to s.151A and the scheme of 29 March 2022: specific jurisdiction having been assigned to the JAO or the FAO under the scheme, there is no concurrent jurisdiction between them, either for issuing the notice or for making the assessment (paras 35 and 36). The alleged escapement was not represented by an asset, expenditure or an entry in the books as s.149(1)(b) requires, a question about the correctness of a Chapter VI-A deduction being none of those (paras 40 and 41). The reopening was a change of opinion, all the material having been before the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, and so was without jurisdiction (paras 42 and 43). Where the deduction had been allowed consistently in earlier years on identical facts, the officer could not believe income had escaped (para 44). The only issue decided against the company was the eighth: the Court declined to hold that the sanctioning authority had failed to apply its mind, so the approval was valid (para 46). Rule was made absolute and the notice and consequential proceedings were quashed (para 48). It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 147, section 148, section 148A, section 149, section 151, section 151A, section 144B, section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Bombay High Court — K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale JJ. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Check whether your own High Court follows Hexaware or the contrary Triton Overseas line — the split is jurisdiction-specific. Raise the jurisdiction point separately from the merits, in writing, before responding on the merits.
Partly overruled — read this first. PARTLY SET ASIDE, AND ONLY ON ONE OF ITS EIGHT GROUNDS. The report of this judgment carries the note that it is partly set aside by the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC), decided 10 April 2026. The setting aside concerns the faceless limb: s.147A, inserted by the Finance Act 2026 and deemed inserted with effect from 1 April 2021, provides that notwithstanding anything in any judgment or in s.151A or any scheme framed under it, the Assessing Officer for ss.148 and 148A means an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment units in s.144B(3); the Supreme Court set aside the taxpayer-favouring High Court judgments on that limited ground without expressing any opinion on the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions, remitted the matters to the respective High Courts, stayed further proceedings under the impugned notices meanwhile, and asked for decisions preferably by 30 September 2026. Constitutional challenges to the retrospectivity of s.147A remain pending. The High Courts were already divided on the faceless point: Bombay, Punjab and Haryana and Telangana holding JAO notices void, Calcutta and Delhi holding the two jurisdictions concurrent. Nothing in any of that touches the other five grounds on which this notice was quashed — TOLA, limitation under the first proviso to s.149, the absent Document Identification Number, the s.149(1)(b) asset requirement, and change of opinion — and those remain the reasons a practitioner would cite this judgment. Its intermediate history is also worth knowing: by September 2024 the Revenue's special leave petition against it was pending and the same Court, in JD Printers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 321 (Bom.), stopped disposing of covered petitions and instead admitted them with a stay of the s.148 notice, with liberty to apply once the Supreme Court had ruled. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Read the validity finding before citing this. The proposition the case is known for — that only the Faceless Assessing Officer may issue a s.148 notice — has been reversed by statute with retrospective effect and the judgment has been partly set aside and remitted on that ground. What the entry previously did not say is that this is one of eight findings. The notice was also quashed because TOLA did not apply, because it was time barred under the first proviso to s.149, because it carried no Document Identification Number, because the alleged escapement was not represented by an asset, expenditure or entry as s.149(1)(b) requires, and because the reopening was a change of opinion on material already before the Assessing Officer. Those grounds are untouched. One issue went against the company: the Court declined to hold the sanction invalid for non-application of mind. What the High Courts decide on remand, and what becomes of the constitutional challenge to the retrospectivity of s.147A, is open. The Supreme Court expressly reserved any opinion on the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The notice was quashed on several independent grounds, of which the faceless point is only one. The Court answered eight issues (para 47). TOLA did not apply to assessment year 2015-16 and a notice issued after 31 March 2021 does not travel back to the original date. The notice of 27 August 2022 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to s.149. It was invalid for want of a Document Identification Number. It was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to s.151A and the scheme of 29 March 2022: specific jurisdiction having been assigned to the JAO or the FAO under the scheme, there is no concurrent jurisdiction between them, either for issuing the notice or for making the assessment (paras 35 and 36). The alleged escapement was not represented by an asset, expenditure or an entry in the books as s.149(1)(b) requires, a question about the correctness of a Chapter VI-A deduction being none of those (paras 40 and 41). The reopening was a change of opinion, all the material having been before the Assessing Officer in the original assessment, and so was without jurisdiction (paras 42 and 43). Where the deduction had been allowed consistently in earlier years on identical facts, the officer could not believe income had escaped (para 44). The only issue decided against the company was the eighth: the Court declined to hold that the sanctioning authority had failed to apply its mind, so the approval was valid (para 46). Rule was made absolute and the notice and consequential proceedings were quashed (para 48).
TaxSphere, “Hexaware Technologies Ltd v ACIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/hexaware-technologies-v-acit/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Finance Act 2026 seems to have changed the reassessment rules backwards in time. What exactly did it change, from which dates, and which of my grounds has it taken away?
We missed the s.80JJAA claim in the return and raised it for the first time in appeal, with the Form 10DA report in hand. Can the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal still allow it?
My client is a staffing company. The Assessing Officer says the people it hires and deputes to clients are not its employees, and separately that Form 10DA was a day late. Both grounds together have killed the whole s.80JJAA claim.
A new manufacturing co-operative society wants the 15 per cent rate. What does s.115BAE require, and is there any decided case on it?
