Both JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 148
The petitioners filed an instant writ petition and contended that the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) would have the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 148.The petitioners submitted that multiple judicial pronouncements stated that it was the FAO, that should have the requisite jurisdiction to issue notices under section 148.
Held : The submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that this Court has settled the law relating to the issue in T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 469 ITR 657 : 167 taxmann.com 759 (Del), which though under challenge before the Supreme Court, has not been stayed.
This Court has maintained a consistent position, that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 148. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P.(C) 13229/2024, dated 23-1-2025], a co-ordinate bench of this Court had dismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in T.K.S. Builders (supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court, the revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with a caveat that any order, if passed adverse to the petitioner therein shall not be given effect.
That apart, even in the cases of Mala Petrochemicals and Polymers v. ITO [W.P.(C) 12011/2025, dated 19-8-2025], Mehak Jagga v. ITO [W.P.(C) 13149/2025, dated 28.08.-2025], All India Kataria Education Society v. DCIT [W.P.(C) 14225/2025, dated 15.09.2025] and Empire Fasteners v. ACIT [W.P.(C) 14754/2025, dated 23.09.2025], similar petitions have been dismissed by relying upon T.K.S. Builders (supra).
The petitioner has put forth a contention that since the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO [SLP (C)Diary No. 39689/2025, dated 18.08.2025], wherein the High Court had held that only FAO would have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 148, thereby meaning that the decision has attained finality, and would, by necessary implication read down the judgment of this Court in T.K.S. Builders (supra). There is no merit in the submission, for the reason that the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP, had only stated that it does not find any merit in the SLP, without giving any detailed reasons.
The petitioner has endeavoured to demonstrate that the reasons assigned by the Supreme Court, in Prakash Pandurang Patil (supra), would make it clear that the SLP has been dismissed both on merits and on delay. According to him, this would mean that by necessary implication, the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 : 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.), relied upon by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment therein, would stand affirmed and the judgment of this Court in T.K.S. Builders (supra) would stand negated. This plea does not appeal, for the reason that the Supreme Court has only dismissed the SLP without dealing with the issue. Going by the above discussed judicial pronouncements, the same cannot be said to have set aside T.K.S. Builders (supra). That apart, the SLP preferred against T.K.S. Builders (supra) is still pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.
As such, the judgment in T.K.S. Builders (supra) would still hold the fort insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present appeals, the same are dismissed. [In favour of revenue] – [Yukti Export v. ITO (2025) 179 taxmann.com 619 (Del.)]
