The High Court quashed my s.148 notice because the ward officer issued it instead of the faceless unit. Does that judgment still stand?
No, not as it stands. On 10 April 2026 the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments that had quashed notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, because s.147A, inserted by the Finance Act 2026 with effect from 1 April 2021, now defines the Assessing Officer for ss.148 and 148A as an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment units in s.144B(3). The Court remitted the matters, left the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity and applicability of s.147A open for the High Courts, and stayed further assessment and reassessment proceedings in the meantime.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.) on 2026-04-10, reported as [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected batch (including Diary Nos. 57737/2025, 37087/2025, 57395/2025, 55409/2025 and 32669/2025); Diary No. 2196/2026; 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 215; the same common order is reported elsewhere as ACIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 436. It bears on section 147A, section 148, section 148A, section 151A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
This is the order that took the ground out from under the taxpayer-favouring line on the JAO/faceless point. Anyone still citing Hexaware Technologies, Jatinder Singh Bhangu or the decisions following them is citing judgments that have been set aside, at least in the batch before the Court. What the order does not do is decide the point: the Revenue's case now rests on a retrospective amendment whose validity is precisely what the High Courts have been asked to examine, so the argument has moved from statutory construction to constitutional challenge. The interim stay is the practical part - while the writ petitions are pending, the reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices do not move.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A batch of appeals by the Revenue against High Court judgments which had quashed reassessment notices under ss.148 and 148A on the ground that they were issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than through the faceless mechanism notified under s.151A. While the appeals were pending, Parliament inserted s.147A by the Finance Act 2026, with effect from 1 April 2021, providing that for ss.148 and 148A the Assessing Officer means an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment units referred to in s.144B(3), and that it operates notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court, s.151A or any scheme framed under it. The Revenue said the amendment was clarificatory and removed the basis of the High Court judgments; the assessees said a retrospective provision cannot validate proceedings that were without jurisdiction when they were taken.
The High Court judgments under appeal were set aside on the limited ground that they no longer reflect the statutory position after s.147A, and the matters were remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. The assessees were given four weeks to amend their petitions to challenge the validity of s.147A and the Revenue three weeks to respond. Further assessment and reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices were stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions, and the High Courts were requested to decide preferably by 30 September 2026. The Court expressly did not decide the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of s.147A.
The order has been read paragraph by paragraph. At para 5 the Court described the batch, which runs to thousands of appeals: some High Courts had set aside s.148A(d) orders and consequential s.148 notices because they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through the prescribed faceless mechanism, while others had upheld the JAO's authority. At para 14 it recorded that Parliament had intervened during the pendency of the appeals by Act No. 4 of 2026, the Finance Act 2026, in force from 1 April 2026. Paras 15 and 16 record the Revenue's statement that s.147A of the 1961 Act clarifies 'Assessing Officer' to mean an officer other than the faceless units and is deemed to operate retrospectively from 1 April 2021, with a parallel s.279(3) inserted in the Income-tax Act 2025 for its ss.280 and 281. Para 19 records, without deciding, the assessees' case that the amendment is not clarificatory but an attempt to fasten liability retrospectively and must be construed strictly. At paras 20 and 21 the Court declined to examine the merits of the rival submissions or the correctness of the judgments under appeal, holding that the assessees are entitled to challenge the amending provisions and that the appropriate course is to relegate them to the jurisdictional High Courts, where all contentions and any other grounds against the notices may be urged. At para 22 it set the taxpayer-favouring judgments aside on that limited ground, because the High Courts had quashed the notices primarily for want of competence in the JAO and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, and remitted the matters. Paras 23 to 25 gave the assessees four weeks from the uploading of the order to amend their writ petitions and the Revenue three weeks thereafter, with no further time. Para 26 records that no opinion was expressed on the merits, including validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity and applicability. Para 27 grants an interim stay of further assessment or reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices during the pendency of the writ petitions, subject to such terms as the High Courts impose, and para 28 requests disposal preferably by 30 September 2026.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions, and all such questions are left open to be decided by the High Courts.
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 WhatsAppNo, not as it stands. On 10 April 2026 the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments that had quashed notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, because s.147A, inserted by the Finance Act 2026 with effect from 1 April 2021, now defines the Assessing Officer for ss.148 and 148A as an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment units in s.144B(3). The Court remitted the matters, left the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity and applicability of s.147A open for the High Courts, and stayed further assessment and reassessment proceedings in the meantime. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.) and bears on section 147A, section 148, section 148A, section 151A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected batch (including Diary Nos. 57737/2025, 37087/2025, 57395/2025, 55409/2025 and 32669/2025); Diary No. 2196/2026; 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 215; the same common order is reported elsewhere as ACIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 436. This is the order that took the ground out from under the taxpayer-favouring line on the JAO/faceless point. Anyone still citing Hexaware Technologies, Jatinder Singh Bhangu or the decisions following them is citing judgments that have been set aside, at least in the batch before the Court. What the order does not do is decide the point: the Revenue's case now rests on a retrospective amendment whose validity is precisely what the High Courts have been asked to examine, so the argument has moved from statutory construction to constitutional challenge. The interim stay is the practical part - while the writ petitions are pending, the reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices do not move. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Do not cite the pre-amendment taxpayer-favouring line without saying that it has been set aside and remitted; check the position on the date you file.
A batch of appeals by the Revenue against High Court judgments which had quashed reassessment notices under ss.148 and 148A on the ground that they were issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than through the faceless mechanism notified under s.151A. While the appeals were pending, Parliament inserted s.147A by the Finance Act 2026, with effect from 1 April 2021, providing that for ss.148 and 148A the Assessing Officer means an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment units referred to in s.144B(3), and that it operates notwithstanding any judgment or order of any court, s.151A or any scheme framed under it. The Revenue said the amendment was clarificatory and removed the basis of the High Court judgments; the assessees said a retrospective provision cannot validate proceedings that were without jurisdiction when they were taken. The matter was decided on 2026-04-10 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The High Court judgments under appeal were set aside on the limited ground that they no longer reflect the statutory position after s.147A, and the matters were remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. The assessees were given four weeks to amend their petitions to challenge the validity of s.147A and the Revenue three weeks to respond. Further assessment and reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices were stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions, and the High Courts were requested to decide preferably by 30 September 2026. The Court expressly did not decide the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of s.147A.
The order has been read paragraph by paragraph. At para 5 the Court described the batch, which runs to thousands of appeals: some High Courts had set aside s.148A(d) orders and consequential s.148 notices because they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of through the prescribed faceless mechanism, while others had upheld the JAO's authority. At para 14 it recorded that Parliament had intervened during the pendency of the appeals by Act No. 4 of 2026, the Finance Act 2026, in force from 1 April 2026. Paras 15 and 16 record the Revenue's statement that s.147A of the 1961 Act clarifies 'Assessing Officer' to mean an officer other than the faceless units and is deemed to operate retrospectively from 1 April 2021, with a parallel s.279(3) inserted in the Income-tax Act 2025 for its ss.280 and 281. Para 19 records, without deciding, the assessees' case that the amendment is not clarificatory but an attempt to fasten liability retrospectively and must be construed strictly. At paras 20 and 21 the Court declined to examine the merits of the rival submissions or the correctness of the judgments under appeal, holding that the assessees are entitled to challenge the amending provisions and that the appropriate course is to relegate them to the jurisdictional High Courts, where all contentions and any other grounds against the notices may be urged. At para 22 it set the taxpayer-favouring judgments aside on that limited ground, because the High Courts had quashed the notices primarily for want of competence in the JAO and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, and remitted the matters. Paras 23 to 25 gave the assessees four weeks from the uploading of the order to amend their writ petitions and the Revenue three weeks thereafter, with no further time. Para 26 records that no opinion was expressed on the merits, including validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity and applicability. Para 27 grants an interim stay of further assessment or reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices during the pendency of the writ petitions, subject to such terms as the High Courts impose, and para 28 requests disposal preferably by 30 September 2026. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions, and all such questions are left open to be decided by the High Courts." The decision followed or applied ITO v. Ashok Singh Gautam HUF [2026] 186 taxmann.com 637 (SC), SLP (C) Diary No. 18882 of 2026, 4 May 2026 - SLP disposed of in terms of this order; ITO v. Sai Kumar Mateti (SC, order dated 4 May 2026) - read with the lead order; ACIT v. Rudra Alloys (P.) Ltd., C.A. No. 8642 of 2026 (SC, 19 June 2026) - batch disposed in the same terms and remitted; Synokem Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. ACIT [2026] 188 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi), 7 July 2026 - acts on the order and limits the liberty to amend.
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2026-04-10 and is reported as [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC); Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected batch (including Diary Nos. 57737/2025, 37087/2025, 57395/2025, 55409/2025 and 32669/2025); Diary No. 2196/2026; 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 215; the same common order is reported elsewhere as ACIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 436. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 147A, section 148, section 148A, section 151A, section 144B, 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 cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The High Court judgments under appeal were set aside on the limited ground that they no longer reflect the statutory position after s.147A, and the matters were remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. The assessees were given four weeks to amend their petitions to challenge the validity of s.147A and the Revenue three weeks to respond. Further assessment and reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices were stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions, and the High Courts were requested to decide preferably by 30 September 2026. The Court expressly did not decide the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of s.147A. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 147A, section 148, section 148A, section 151A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, 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. If you have a pending writ on the JAO point, amend it to challenge the validity and retrospectivity of s.147A rather than resting on s.151A and the Scheme. Record the interim stay of further assessment and reassessment proceedings and use it if the officer tries to press on. Keep the merits answer to the s.148A(b) notice on record, so that nothing turns on the jurisdictional ground alone if the amendment is upheld. Watch the High Court to which your matter has gone; the Supreme Court asked for disposal preferably by 30 September 2026.
Still good law. Applied by the Supreme Court itself. In ITO v. Ashok Singh Gautam HUF [2026] 186 taxmann.com 637 (SC), SLP (Civil) Diary No. 18882 of 2026, decided 4 May 2026 by Surya Kant, CJ. and Joymalya Bagchi, J., an SLP against a High Court decision quashing a s.148 notice for want of jurisdiction was disposed of in terms of this order. The batch in ACIT v. Rudra Alloys (P.) Ltd., C.A. No. 8642 of 2026, was disposed of on 19 June 2026 in the same terms and remitted. High Courts are acting on it: in Synokem Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. ACIT [2026] 188 taxmann.com 498 (Delhi), W.P.(C) No. 16353 of 2024, 7 July 2026, the Delhi High Court held that where the original writ petition had already been dismissed, an application to amend under the liberty granted by this order is misconceived - which matters for who actually gets the benefit of the four-week liberty. Nothing overruling or doubting the order was traced. What is genuinely open is the point it did not decide: the constitutional validity and retrospectivity of s.147A are under active challenge before the High Courts, which were asked to decide preferably by 30 September 2026, so the position must be checked again before this is relied on. 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.
The order has now been read paragraph by paragraph and the holding, the reasoning and the quoted sentence come from its numbered paragraphs. The date is 10 April 2026, confirmed against the order itself; a report giving 10 June 2026 is wrong. The batch is reported under more than one caption - Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 with connected diary numbers, and Diary No. 2196/2026 - so check the caption of the order actually applied to your matter. The case review is worth reading with the entries it affects: Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) is recorded at para 22 as partly set aside, and Jasjit Singh v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 114/[2024] 467 ITR 52 (Punjab & Haryana), together with the order dated 8 April 2025 in CWP No. 10149 of 2025, as set aside. The Court decided nothing on the merits. The 10 April 2026 common order disposed of several hundred appeals and is reported under more than one cause title. LiveLaw and much of the commentary carry it as ACIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.; the order itself is captioned in the lead matter, ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Partap Singh. They are the same order — anyone searching for Aristo Pharmaceuticals should land here. The order does not decide the point it is about: validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity and applicability of s.147A are expressly left open at para 26. It does not tell you what happens to an assessment already completed on a JAO-issued notice - it deals with pending proceedings and stays them - nor what becomes of a completed assessment if s.147A is later struck down, nor how limitation for a fresh notice would then run. It also does not say whether the interim stay at para 27 extends to assessees who were not before the Court, and the Delhi High Court has since held that an assessee whose writ petition had already been dismissed cannot use the liberty to amend. 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 High Court judgments under appeal were set aside on the limited ground that they no longer reflect the statutory position after s.147A, and the matters were remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. The assessees were given four weeks to amend their petitions to challenge the validity of s.147A and the Revenue three weeks to respond. Further assessment and reassessment proceedings under the impugned notices were stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions, and the High Courts were requested to decide preferably by 30 September 2026. The Court expressly did not decide the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of s.147A.
TaxSphere, “ITO v Tej Partap Singh”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ito-v-tej-partap-singh-147a-jao/ (validity last checked 2026-08-20)
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?
The Supreme Court remitted my JAO reassessment case and gave four weeks to amend. Will the High Court actually let me amend to challenge s.147A?
The order under section 148A(d) rejects everything I said and the section 148 notice has followed. Can I take it straight to the High Court?
My reassessment for an old year was restarted in 2022 on the strength of a Board instruction rather than a fresh notice. What does that instruction actually say, and how much of it is the Supreme Court's?
