Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Vs. Faceless Assessing Officer: Telangana High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices
The petitioner challenged reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that they were not conducted in a faceless manner, as mandated by Section 151A and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022.
The High Court held that this issue was already settled in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)], where such reassessment proceedings were quashed for being non-faceless and in violation of the amended provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021.
Several other High Courts including Bombay, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Gauhati, Calcutta, Himachal Pradesh, and Jharkhand have also quashed similar reassessment actions, with the Rajasthan High Court alone disposing of a batch of writ petitions on 19.03.2024.
The Court was informed that more than 1,200 Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on the same issue are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including SLP No. 3574 of 2024, filed against the Telangana High Court’s own ruling.
Despite this, there is no interim stay by the Supreme Court in any of these SLPs, and yet the Income Tax Department continues to issue reassessment notices in a jurisdictional (manual) manner.
The Court made serious and scathing observations against this conduct, noting that over 600–700 identical writ petitions have been filed before the Telangana High Court alone, burdening its docket and judicial resources on an issue already adjudicated.
The Department admitted that it has taken no remedial action or issued instructions to stop these notices, citing that such decisions must be taken at the CBDT level as a pan-India policy.
The Court warned that the Department appears to be misusing the liberty granted in earlier rulings to delay proceedings deliberately, thereby gaining advantage over limitation periods while causing prejudice to taxpayers’ rights.
Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance and the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Bank of India v. ACIT [(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422], the Court reiterated that authorities are bound by appellate decisions unless stayed by a competent court.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and all impugned notices and orders were quashed, with the clarification that this relief is subject to the outcome of the pending SLPs before the Supreme Court. As of now around 1,200 SLPs Await SC Verdict on Section 148A Validity”
The copy of the order is as under:
