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?
Not as of right. The Delhi High Court refused. Delhi had already held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. that the Faceless Assessing Officer and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer have concurrent jurisdiction, so s.147A took nothing away from this petitioner; the writ petition had in any event already been dismissed. The court held that whatever little remained to be argued had been washed away by the amendment and rejected the amendment application as misconceived.
Decided by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J) on 2026-07-07, reported as W.P.(C) 16353/2024; CM APPL. 40729/2026 (Delhi High Court). It bears on section 147A, section 148, section 151A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters.
The liberty to amend given by the Supreme Court is not a licence to reopen a case already lost. Where the High Court's own law had always been that the JAO could issue the notice, the assessee never had a judgment to lose, and s.147A adds nothing for that assessee to challenge in that petition. This is the first reported application of the remand and it shows that the four-week window is worth something only where there is a live proceeding and a real challenge to bring.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner's writ petition challenging a reassessment notice had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Following the Supreme Court's common order of 10 April 2026, which set aside High Court judgments that had quashed JAO-issued reassessment notices and gave assessees four weeks to amend their writ petitions, the petitioner applied to amend. The Revenue opposed, pointing out that the Delhi High Court had held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. that 'after introduction of Section 151A in Act of 1961, the Faceless Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "FAO") and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "JAO") both had the concurrent jurisdiction', so that the appeals allowed by the Supreme Court were those of the Revenue against contrary High Court decisions, not anything that assisted this petitioner.
The application was rejected as misconceived. The court held at para 6 that 'what has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 (No. 4 of 2026), by way of amendment to Section 147A is, that the FAO and the JAO both have concurrent jurisdiction', which was precisely what the Delhi High Court had already held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. It reproduced paragraphs 22 to 27 of the Supreme Court's order of 10 April 2026, including the liberty to the assessees to amend their writ petitions to challenge the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, and then held at para 11 that the writ petition had already been dismissed and that whatever little remained to be argued had been washed away by the amendment.
The court read the Supreme Court's order as having allowed the Revenue's appeals against those High Courts which had taken the view that only the NFAC could issue a notice under s.148, and as having given the consequential liberty to amend to the assessees who had won on that ground. Since the Delhi High Court's own view, in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd., had always been that the FAO and the JAO exercise concurrent jurisdiction, s.147A merely codified the position already applied against this petitioner. The petitioner had therefore lost nothing by the amendment and had nothing left to argue in a petition that stood dismissed, and the amendment application served no purpose.
So far as the present petition is concerned, the writ petition had been dismissed by this Court and whatever little remained to be argued has been washed away by the introduction of the above referred amendment. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner is misconceived. The same is, therefore, rejected.
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 WhatsAppNot as of right. The Delhi High Court refused. Delhi had already held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. that the Faceless Assessing Officer and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer have concurrent jurisdiction, so s.147A took nothing away from this petitioner; the writ petition had in any event already been dismissed. The court held that whatever little remained to be argued had been washed away by the amendment and rejected the amendment application as misconceived. This was decided by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J) and bears on section 147A, section 148, section 151A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 16353/2024; CM APPL. 40729/2026 (Delhi High Court). The liberty to amend given by the Supreme Court is not a licence to reopen a case already lost. Where the High Court's own law had always been that the JAO could issue the notice, the assessee never had a judgment to lose, and s.147A adds nothing for that assessee to challenge in that petition. This is the first reported application of the remand and it shows that the four-week window is worth something only where there is a live proceeding and a real challenge to bring. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Work out first whether your High Court's pre-amendment law was for or against you on the JAO point. If it followed T.K.S. Builder and held that the FAO and the JAO have concurrent jurisdiction, s.147A changes nothing in your case and an amendment application on that basis is likely to be refused.
The petitioner's writ petition challenging a reassessment notice had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court. Following the Supreme Court's common order of 10 April 2026, which set aside High Court judgments that had quashed JAO-issued reassessment notices and gave assessees four weeks to amend their writ petitions, the petitioner applied to amend. The Revenue opposed, pointing out that the Delhi High Court had held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. that 'after introduction of Section 151A in Act of 1961, the Faceless Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "FAO") and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "JAO") both had the concurrent jurisdiction', so that the appeals allowed by the Supreme Court were those of the Revenue against contrary High Court decisions, not anything that assisted this petitioner. The matter was decided on 2026-07-07 by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The application was rejected as misconceived. The court held at para 6 that 'what has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 (No. 4 of 2026), by way of amendment to Section 147A is, that the FAO and the JAO both have concurrent jurisdiction', which was precisely what the Delhi High Court had already held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. It reproduced paragraphs 22 to 27 of the Supreme Court's order of 10 April 2026, including the liberty to the assessees to amend their writ petitions to challenge the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, and then held at para 11 that the writ petition had already been dismissed and that whatever little remained to be argued had been washed away by the amendment.
The court read the Supreme Court's order as having allowed the Revenue's appeals against those High Courts which had taken the view that only the NFAC could issue a notice under s.148, and as having given the consequential liberty to amend to the assessees who had won on that ground. Since the Delhi High Court's own view, in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd., had always been that the FAO and the JAO exercise concurrent jurisdiction, s.147A merely codified the position already applied against this petitioner. The petitioner had therefore lost nothing by the amendment and had nothing left to argue in a petition that stood dismissed, and the amendment application served no purpose. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "So far as the present petition is concerned, the writ petition had been dismissed by this Court and whatever little remained to be argued has been washed away by the introduction of the above referred amendment. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner is misconceived. The same is, therefore, rejected." The decision followed or applied T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi - followed for the proposition that the FAO and the JAO have concurrent jurisdiction after the introduction of s.151A; Order of the Supreme Court dated 10 April 2026 in the batch reported as ACIT v. Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd - paragraphs 22 to 27 reproduced and applied.
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-07-07 and is reported as W.P.(C) 16353/2024; CM APPL. 40729/2026 (Delhi High Court). 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 147A, section 148, section 151A, 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 department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The application was rejected as misconceived. The court held at para 6 that 'what has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 (No. 4 of 2026), by way of amendment to Section 147A is, that the FAO and the JAO both have concurrent jurisdiction', which was precisely what the Delhi High Court had already held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. It reproduced paragraphs 22 to 27 of the Supreme Court's order of 10 April 2026, including the liberty to the assessees to amend their writ petitions to challenge the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, and then held at para 11 that the writ petition had already been dismissed and that whatever little remained to be argued had been washed away by the amendment. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Faceless Assessment & Appeals matters, on section 147A, section 148, section 151A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J. 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. Do not try to revive a writ petition that has already been dismissed by amending it; bring the constitutional challenge to s.147A in a live proceeding. If you do have a live petition, move within the Supreme Court's four-week window and plead the challenge to the amendment specifically, not merely as a restatement of the old s.151A argument.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Two searches, nothing found. The citedby search on the doc id is empty. A name search returns 79 results, none of which considers this order: the other entries are this company's drugs-inspector prosecutions, commercial suits and trade mark matters, and an earlier Delhi High Court order of 26 November 2024 in this same writ petition. No later decision has adopted, doubted or distinguished it, and no appeal was traced. Its weight is limited in any event: it is an order refusing an amendment application in a writ petition already dismissed, and it turns on the Delhi High Court's pre-existing position in T.K.S. Builder Pvt Ltd that the Faceless and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer have concurrent jurisdiction. 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.
This is an order on an application (CM APPL. 40729/2026) in an already-dismissed writ petition, not a decision on the constitutional validity of s.147A, and it should not be cited as one. The court's paragraph 6 describes s.147A as an 'amendment to Section 147A'; the provision was in fact inserted, not amended, by clause 9 of the Finance Act, 2026, and the loose wording is reproduced here as it stands in the order. The writ petition number W.P.(C) 16353/2024 is taken from the Indian Kanoon page header and was not separately confirmed against the Delhi High Court website. 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 application was rejected as misconceived. The court held at para 6 that 'what has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2026 (No. 4 of 2026), by way of amendment to Section 147A is, that the FAO and the JAO both have concurrent jurisdiction', which was precisely what the Delhi High Court had already held in T.K.S. Builder Pvt. Ltd. It reproduced paragraphs 22 to 27 of the Supreme Court's order of 10 April 2026, including the liberty to the assessees to amend their writ petitions to challenge the retrospectivity or otherwise of the amendment introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, and then held at para 11 that the writ petition had already been dismissed and that whatever little remained to be argued had been washed away by the amendment.
TaxSphere, “Synokem Pharmaceuticals Ltd v ACIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/synokem-pharmaceuticals-v-acit/ (validity last checked 2026-09-06)
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 High Court quashed my s.148 notice because the ward officer issued it instead of the faceless unit. Does that judgment still stand?
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 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?
