Can the jurisdictional AO issue my s.148 notice, or must reassessment go through the faceless route?
On this line of authority he can. The Delhi High Court held that the JAO and the faceless assessing officer have concurrent jurisdiction, that the Scheme notified under s.151A does not extinguish the JAO's power to issue notices under ss.148 and 148A, and that s.144B is procedural and is not itself a source of the power to assess or reassess.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court (Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.)) on 2024-10-28, reported as (2024) 167 taxmann.com 759 / 469 ITR 657 / 341 CTR 465 / 243 DTR 305 / 8 NYPCTR 1426 (Delhi)(HC). It bears on section 151A, section 148, section 148A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Faceless Assessment & Appeals and Reassessment & Reopening matters.
This is the revenue side of a split the library deliberately holds both sides of, and it is the answer you will meet if you take the jurisdictional point before a court following this line. The Court distinguished Hexaware on the footing that the Bombay High Court had not accounted for the notification of 13 August 2020, which in its view conferred concurrent powers on NFAC officers alongside the JAO. The wider position has since moved decisively — read the editor's note before relying on either side.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 2014-15 the petitioner challenged, under Article 226, a reassessment notice under section 148 and the antecedent proceedings under sections 148A(b) and 148A(d), all issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The sole jurisdictional ground was that after the notification of the Scheme under section 151A the notice could only have been issued through the faceless mechanism, and that the JAO had been divested of authority. The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT. The Revenue contended that the JAO retained authority and that the faceless architecture operated alongside, not to the exclusion of, the jurisdictional officer.
The writ petitions were dismissed on the single question argued. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the faceless machinery hold concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment, and section 144B - being procedural, and concerned with the manner in which a faceless assessment is conducted rather than with the source of the power to assess or reassess - is not the exclusive route for assessment or reassessment (paras 76 to 88, 104). The Court expressly confined itself to that issue: counsel had restricted their submissions to whether a notice issued by the JAO complied with the faceless scheme, and in dismissing the petitions the Court clarified in para 105 that any other objection to the initiation of reassessment remained open to be taken in independent proceedings. It therefore decides nothing about the validity of these particular reassessments on any other ground.
The Court began from the sources of information on which a reassessment may be founded. Explanations 1 and 2 to section 148 contemplate reassessment on audit objection, on search or requisition material, on survey material and on information otherwise reaching the Assessing Officer - none of which depends on data held by the National Faceless Assessment Centre - so it would be erroneous to treat section 144B as the solitary basis for initiating reassessment (paras 75-76). Section 144B is procedural; it prescribes how a faceless assessment is conducted and does not itself supply the power to assess or reassess (paras 76-77, 80). Sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 144B, which allow a case to be sent back to the JAO, confirm that it is not the exclusive route (paras 78, 81). The jurisdiction conferred for faceless assessment is expressed to be exercised 'concurrently', which means contemporaneously and not to the exclusion of the authority otherwise conferred on the JAO (para 82); the Court read its own earlier decision in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust as a 'resounding answer' to the challenge, that decision having held the Act does not denude the JAO of authority to assess (paras 83-85). On the Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022 itself the Court read clause 3 by its punctuation, separating initiation under the risk management strategy, the formation of opinion and issue of notice, and the assessment proper; information pushed to the JAO by the RMS and the Insight Portal entitles him to run the section 148A procedure, and only when the record is transmitted to the NFAC do automated allocation and faceless distribution come into play (paras 99-101, 103). It followed the Gujarat High Court in Talati and Talati LLP (paras 96-97). It declined to follow Hexaware Technologies: the Bombay High Court's decision makes no reference to the notification of 13 August 2020, produced in these proceedings, which conferred concurrent powers and functions of the Assessing Officer on officers empowered to conduct faceless assessment, and the Delhi Bench also found itself unable to concur having regard to the sources of information available to a JAO (para 93).
We also, in this regard, bear in consideration the indubitable fact that Section 144B is primarily procedural and is principally concerned with prescribing the manner in which a faceless assessment may be conducted as opposed to constituting a source of power to assess or reassess in itself.
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 WhatsAppOn this line of authority he can. The Delhi High Court held that the JAO and the faceless assessing officer have concurrent jurisdiction, that the Scheme notified under s.151A does not extinguish the JAO's power to issue notices under ss.148 and 148A, and that s.144B is procedural and is not itself a source of the power to assess or reassess. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court (Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.)) and bears on section 151A, section 148, section 148A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as (2024) 167 taxmann.com 759 / 469 ITR 657 / 341 CTR 465 / 243 DTR 305 / 8 NYPCTR 1426 (Delhi)(HC). This is the revenue side of a split the library deliberately holds both sides of, and it is the answer you will meet if you take the jurisdictional point before a court following this line. The Court distinguished Hexaware on the footing that the Bombay High Court had not accounted for the notification of 13 August 2020, which in its view conferred concurrent powers on NFAC officers alongside the JAO. The wider position has since moved decisively — read the editor's note before relying on either side. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check which High Court's view governs your assessee before making the JAO/FAO point your main ground.
For assessment year 2014-15 the petitioner challenged, under Article 226, a reassessment notice under section 148 and the antecedent proceedings under sections 148A(b) and 148A(d), all issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The sole jurisdictional ground was that after the notification of the Scheme under section 151A the notice could only have been issued through the faceless mechanism, and that the JAO had been divested of authority. The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT. The Revenue contended that the JAO retained authority and that the faceless architecture operated alongside, not to the exclusion of, the jurisdictional officer. The matter was decided on 2024-10-28 by the High Court (Delhi High Court (Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.)). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petitions were dismissed on the single question argued. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the faceless machinery hold concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment, and section 144B - being procedural, and concerned with the manner in which a faceless assessment is conducted rather than with the source of the power to assess or reassess - is not the exclusive route for assessment or reassessment (paras 76 to 88, 104). The Court expressly confined itself to that issue: counsel had restricted their submissions to whether a notice issued by the JAO complied with the faceless scheme, and in dismissing the petitions the Court clarified in para 105 that any other objection to the initiation of reassessment remained open to be taken in independent proceedings. It therefore decides nothing about the validity of these particular reassessments on any other ground.
The Court began from the sources of information on which a reassessment may be founded. Explanations 1 and 2 to section 148 contemplate reassessment on audit objection, on search or requisition material, on survey material and on information otherwise reaching the Assessing Officer - none of which depends on data held by the National Faceless Assessment Centre - so it would be erroneous to treat section 144B as the solitary basis for initiating reassessment (paras 75-76). Section 144B is procedural; it prescribes how a faceless assessment is conducted and does not itself supply the power to assess or reassess (paras 76-77, 80). Sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 144B, which allow a case to be sent back to the JAO, confirm that it is not the exclusive route (paras 78, 81). The jurisdiction conferred for faceless assessment is expressed to be exercised 'concurrently', which means contemporaneously and not to the exclusion of the authority otherwise conferred on the JAO (para 82); the Court read its own earlier decision in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust as a 'resounding answer' to the challenge, that decision having held the Act does not denude the JAO of authority to assess (paras 83-85). On the Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022 itself the Court read clause 3 by its punctuation, separating initiation under the risk management strategy, the formation of opinion and issue of notice, and the assessment proper; information pushed to the JAO by the RMS and the Insight Portal entitles him to run the section 148A procedure, and only when the record is transmitted to the NFAC do automated allocation and faceless distribution come into play (paras 99-101, 103). It followed the Gujarat High Court in Talati and Talati LLP (paras 96-97). It declined to follow Hexaware Technologies: the Bombay High Court's decision makes no reference to the notification of 13 August 2020, produced in these proceedings, which conferred concurrent powers and functions of the Assessing Officer on officers empowered to conduct faceless assessment, and the Delhi Bench also found itself unable to concur having regard to the sources of information available to a JAO (para 93). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We also, in this regard, bear in consideration the indubitable fact that Section 144B is primarily procedural and is principally concerned with prescribing the manner in which a faceless assessment may be conducted as opposed to constituting a source of power to assess or reassess in itself." The decision followed or applied Talati and Talati LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 371 / 301 Taxman 321 (Gujarat) - followed (para 96); Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. CIT (Exemption) [2023] 150 taxmann.com 459 / 294 Taxman 130 / 455 ITR 164 (Delhi) - relied on as concluding the point (paras 83-85); Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 / 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) - distinguished and not followed (para 93); Applied later in Yukti Export v. ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 619 (Delhi), W.P.(C) 15024, 15028, 15039, 15104 and 15107 of 2025, decided 26 September 2025 (V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, JJ.), which held both the JAO and the FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under section 148.
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-10-28 and is reported as (2024) 167 taxmann.com 759 / 469 ITR 657 / 341 CTR 465 / 243 DTR 305 / 8 NYPCTR 1426 (Delhi)(HC). 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 151A, section 148, section 148A, 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 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 writ petitions were dismissed on the single question argued. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the faceless machinery hold concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment, and section 144B - being procedural, and concerned with the manner in which a faceless assessment is conducted rather than with the source of the power to assess or reassess - is not the exclusive route for assessment or reassessment (paras 76 to 88, 104). The Court expressly confined itself to that issue: counsel had restricted their submissions to whether a notice issued by the JAO complied with the faceless scheme, and in dismissing the petitions the Court clarified in para 105 that any other objection to the initiation of reassessment remained open to be taken in independent proceedings. It therefore decides nothing about the validity of these particular reassessments on any other ground. It arises in Faceless Assessment & Appeals and Reassessment & Reopening matters, on section 151A, section 148, section 148A, section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court (Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja, 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. Do not rest a writ petition on the jurisdictional ground alone; answer the s.148A(b) notice on the merits and keep that reply on record. Verify the current position on s.147A and on the pending High Court proceedings before filing, because a purely jurisdictional challenge may now be met with the amendment.
Still good law. THE COURTS ARE SPLIT - hold this entry alongside the Hexaware entry, which takes the opposite view. This is the revenue-side line: Delhi (this decision, and Yukti Export v. ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 619 (Delhi), decided 26 September 2025, which reaffirmed concurrent jurisdiction) and Calcutta (Triton Overseas Private Limited; Sanghi Steel Udyog (P) Ltd). Against it: Bombay (Hexaware), Punjab & Haryana (Jatinder Singh Bhangu; Jasjit Singh) and ITAT Chennai (Albert Sheela). Two qualifications. First, in Yukti Export the Revenue's counsel recorded that this judgment had itself been carried to the Supreme Court and that there was no stay of it; the outcome of that appeal was not established. Second, the outcome this decision reached now has statutory backing: section 147A, inserted by the Finance Act 2026 (Act No. 4 of 2026) with retrospective effect from 1 April 2021, provides that the Assessing Officer for sections 148 and 148A means an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or an assessment unit referred to in section 144B(3). In Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC), C.A. No. 4716 of 2026, decided 10 April 2026 (Surya Kant, CJI, B.V. Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.), the Supreme Court set aside the contrary High Court judgments on that limited ground and remitted them for fresh consideration, expressly saying at para 26 that it expressed no opinion on the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amendment, granting an interim stay of further proceedings under the impugned notices and requesting the High Courts to decide preferably by 30 September 2026. 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 disposal narrowly. The Court decided only whether a section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer survives the faceless scheme; it dismissed the petitions on that question alone and left every other objection to the reassessment open for independent proceedings (paras 1 and 105). The courts are split, and the position has been overtaken by statute. Against this decision: Bombay in Hexaware Technologies, Punjab & Haryana in Jatinder Singh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh, and ITAT Chennai in Albert Sheela. With it: Delhi, reaffirmed in Yukti Export v. ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 619 (Delhi), and Calcutta in Triton Overseas and Sanghi Steel Udyog. Section 147A, inserted by the Finance Act 2026 with retrospective effect from 1 April 2021, provides that the Assessing Officer for sections 148 and 148A means an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre and the assessment units in section 144B(3), which reverses the taxpayer-favouring line legislatively. In Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC), decided 10 April 2026, the Supreme Court set aside the taxpayer-favouring High Court judgments on that limited ground, expressed no opinion on the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amendment, remitted the matters for fresh consideration, granted an interim stay of further proceedings under the impugned notices, gave the assessees four weeks to amend their petitions to challenge section 147A, and asked the High Courts to decide preferably by 30 September 2026. Anyone citing either side today is citing law that is under active reconsideration. The judgment was read in full, so the reasoning and the quote now come from it. The outcome of the appeal against this judgment to the Supreme Court was not established: it is recorded in Yukti Export only as counsel's statement that the appeal was pending and unstayed as at 26 September 2025. Constitutional challenges to the retrospectivity of section 147A are before the High Courts on the Supreme Court's remit and were not traced. 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 writ petitions were dismissed on the single question argued. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the faceless machinery hold concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment, and section 144B - being procedural, and concerned with the manner in which a faceless assessment is conducted rather than with the source of the power to assess or reassess - is not the exclusive route for assessment or reassessment (paras 76 to 88, 104). The Court expressly confined itself to that issue: counsel had restricted their submissions to whether a notice issued by the JAO complied with the faceless scheme, and in dismissing the petitions the Court clarified in para 105 that any other objection to the initiation of reassessment remained open to be taken in independent proceedings. It therefore decides nothing about the validity of these particular reassessments on any other ground.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
How much am I actually required to disclose — and can they reopen because the officer drew the wrong conclusion?
The sanctioning authority just wrote 'yes' and signed. Is that a sanction?
A reassessment was done in between. Does the two-year clock for s.263 restart from it?