Faceless Reassessment Gets a Major Boost: Andhra Pradesh High Court Strikes Down Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Unconstitutional
A Landmark Judgment on Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers, Retrospective Amendments, and the Constitutional Validity of Section 147A
SEO Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court Strikes Down Section 147A: Landmark Judgment on Faceless Income Tax Reassessment
Meta Description: The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in its judgment dated 12 October 2026, declared Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 unconstitutional. Explore the ruling on jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers, faceless reassessment under Section 151A, retrospective amendments and the repeal of the 1961 Act.
Focus Keywords: Section 147A unconstitutional, Andhra Pradesh High Court Income Tax judgment, faceless reassessment, Section 151A Income Tax Act, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Section 148A reassessment notice, retrospective amendment Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act 2025.
Suggested URL Slug: andhra-pradesh-high-court-section-147a-unconstitutional-faceless-reassessment
Introduction: A Significant Victory for Faceless Tax Administration
Can Parliament retrospectively amend a tax provision to validate the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer after courts have held that the officer lacked the necessary authority? Can an amendment be inserted into an Act that has already been repealed? And can the tax administration bypass the faceless reassessment mechanism introduced to promote transparency, accountability and efficiency?
These important questions came before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a large batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a significant judgment pronounced on 12 October 2026, a Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar declared Section 147A unconstitutional and struck it down. The Court further held that the proceedings initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148, which were challenged in the writ petitions, were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside because the proceedings were required to be undertaken through the faceless mechanism.
The judgment is reported in the common order in W.P. No. 28520 of 2023 and a large batch of connected writ petitions.
The decision addresses the relationship between Sections 147, 148, 148A, 144B and 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the validity of retrospective legislative amendments, and the legal consequences of the repeal of the 1961 Act following the introduction of the Income Tax Act, 2025.
The ruling is particularly important for taxpayers who have faced reassessment notices from Jurisdictional Assessing Officers and whose cases involve the controversy surrounding faceless reassessment.
Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court, common order dated 12 October 2026, W.P. No. 28520 of 2023 and batch, particularly paragraph 107.
1. Understanding the Background: The Introduction of Faceless Assessment
To appreciate the significance of the judgment, it is necessary to understand the legislative developments that led to the controversy.
The Government introduced the faceless assessment framework with the objective of reducing personal interaction between taxpayers and income tax authorities, improving administrative efficiency, ensuring greater transparency and minimising the possibility of arbitrary decision-making.
The initial framework developed through the e-Assessment Scheme, 2019, which was subsequently modified into the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019.
The Finance Act, 2021 introduced Section 144B into the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 1 April 2021, incorporating the faceless assessment procedure into the statute.
The framework was subsequently developed to include reassessment proceedings under Section 147.
Alongside Section 144B, Section 151A empowered the Central Government to formulate schemes for conducting assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, issuing notices under Section 148, conducting inquiries, issuing show-cause notices and performing other specified functions through a scheme designed to promote efficiency, transparency and accountability.
In exercise of these powers, the Government notified the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, on 29 March 2022.
Under this scheme, assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 and the issuance of notices under Section 148 were to be undertaken through automated allocation and in a faceless manner to the extent provided under Section 144B.
This development gave rise to an important legal question: After the introduction of the statutory faceless reassessment framework, could a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer independently initiate proceedings under Sections 148A and 148, or were these functions required to be performed through the prescribed faceless mechanism?
This was not merely a question of administrative convenience. It concerned the jurisdiction of the officer initiating reassessment proceedings and the legality of the resulting notices and orders.
The controversy ultimately reached several High Courts, resulting in differing judicial views and considerable uncertainty for taxpayers as well as the Income Tax Department.
2. The Core Controversy: Jurisdictional AO Versus Faceless Assessing Officer
The dispute principally concerned the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, commonly referred to as the JAO, to initiate reassessment proceedings.
The taxpayers contended that, following the introduction of Section 151A and the notification of the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, reassessment proceedings had to follow the prescribed faceless framework.
According to the petitioners, notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148 were contrary to the statutory scheme and consequently suffered from a jurisdictional defect.
Their case was that the legislation had deliberately introduced automated allocation, technology-driven administration and a faceless mechanism to eliminate unnecessary personal interaction and promote consistency in tax administration.
If the prescribed scheme required the relevant proceedings to be undertaken through the faceless mechanism, the authorities could not disregard that requirement merely because the officer continued to exercise jurisdiction over the taxpayer under the conventional administrative arrangement.
The Revenue, on the other hand, defended the authority of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers.
Its principal argument was that reassessment involved two distinct stages:
1. The preliminary stage, involving inquiries under Section 148A and the decision whether to issue a notice under Section 148.
2. The subsequent assessment or reassessment stage under Section 147, following the issuance of the notice.
According to the Revenue, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was competent to perform the functions relating to the preliminary stage, while the subsequent assessment or reassessment could be conducted through the faceless mechanism.
The Department also argued that the notification dated 29 March 2022 did not expressly require notices under Section 148 to be issued exclusively by the National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Thus, the dispute centred on the interpretation of the statutory framework and the scope of the faceless reassessment scheme.
3. The Earlier Andhra Pradesh High Court Decision of 28 October 2025
The controversy had already been considered by a coordinate Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
By an order dated 28 October 2025, the Court allowed the writ petitions before it and set aside the impugned notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148.
The Court held that the proceedings were contrary to Section 151A read with Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29 March 2022.
The decision was significant because it recognised the importance of the prescribed faceless reassessment mechanism in determining whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had the necessary authority to initiate the proceedings.
The Revenue challenged the decision before the Supreme Court of India.
While those proceedings were pending, Parliament introduced Section 147A through the Finance Act, 2026.
The amendment changed the legal landscape and became the central issue in the subsequent proceedings before the High Courts.
4. Finance Act, 2026 Introduces Section 147A with Retrospective Effect
Section 147A was introduced into the Income Tax Act, 1961, through Section 9 of the Finance Act, 2026.
The provision was expressly given retrospective effect from 1 April 2021.
In substance, Section 147A provided that, notwithstanding any judgment, order or decree of a court, or anything contained in Section 151A or any scheme framed under that section, the expression Assessing Officer for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A would mean an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or an assessment unit referred to in Section 144B(3).
The amendment was therefore intended to clarify that the functions under Sections 148A and 148 could be performed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than exclusively through the faceless assessment mechanism.
The retrospective date was particularly important.
By deeming the provision to have existed from 1 April 2021, Parliament sought to address the jurisdictional objections raised against notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers during the preceding years.
The provision also expressly referred to judicial decisions, Section 151A and schemes framed under that section.
Consequently, the amendment directly affected the legal foundation of the earlier judgments in which reassessment proceedings had been set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
The taxpayers challenged the constitutional validity of Section 147A, arguing that the amendment could not legitimately override judicial decisions, retrospectively alter the applicable legal framework or confer jurisdiction on an authority that lacked it under the law applicable when the proceedings were initiated.
The Revenue defended the amendment as a valid legislative clarification intended to remove uncertainty and resolve conflicting judicial interpretations.
5. What Did the Supreme Court Decide Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Final Judgment?
After the introduction of Section 147A, the Supreme Court disposed of the Revenue’s appeals by an order dated 10 April 2026.
The Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional validity of the amendment on its merits.
Instead, it permitted the taxpayers to challenge Section 147A before the jurisdictional High Courts and left the relevant legal questions open for consideration.
The Supreme Court observed that the earlier judgments had principally proceeded on the basis that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers lacked the competence to initiate the reassessment proceedings, and that the subsequent amendment had altered the foundation of those decisions.
Accordingly, the earlier judgments were set aside on that limited ground, and the matters were remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration.
The Court specifically left open questions concerning the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity and applicability of the amended provisions.
It also directed that, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Courts, further assessment or reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices would remain stayed, subject to such terms and conditions as the High Courts might impose.
The Supreme Court’s order was therefore procedural in nature concerning the remand. It did not uphold Section 147A as constitutionally valid.
The constitutional challenge was consequently taken up by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which examined the amended provision and the connected jurisdictional issues afresh.
6. The Principal Arguments Advanced by the Taxpayers
Before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioners raised several substantial legal and constitutional objections.
A. Violation of the statutory faceless reassessment framework
The taxpayers argued that Section 151A and the scheme notified on 29 March 2022 prescribed the manner in which reassessment proceedings were to be conducted.
According to them, the statutory framework could not be ignored while initiating proceedings under Sections 148A and 148.
They maintained that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers were inconsistent with the prescribed procedure and therefore lacked jurisdiction.
B. Impermissible retrospective conferral of jurisdiction
The petitioners contended that the retrospective insertion of Section 147A could not validly confer jurisdiction on the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers for proceedings initiated at a time when, according to their interpretation of the existing statutory framework, such jurisdiction did not exist.
Their argument was that a retrospective amendment cannot automatically cure every legal defect merely by declaring that an officer should be treated as having possessed authority from an earlier date.
The validity of such an amendment must be tested against the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework.
C. Interference with judicial decisions
Another important objection concerned the relationship between legislative power and judicial authority.
The petitioners argued that Parliament could amend the law retrospectively within constitutional limits, but could not simply declare judicial decisions ineffective without legally addressing the underlying defect identified by the courts.
According to them, Section 147A sought to neutralise judgments holding that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers lacked the necessary authority under the existing faceless reassessment framework.
They contended that this approach infringed the constitutional separation of powers.
D. Violation of the rule of law and constitutional principles
The taxpayers also questioned whether the retrospective amendment was compatible with the rule of law, constitutional limitations on legislative power and the rights of taxpayers under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Their case was that statutory procedures governing tax reassessment must be followed by the Department and cannot be retrospectively altered in a manner that defeats the legal consequences of the framework applicable to earlier proceedings.
E. The repeal of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The petitioners raised another significant objection.
They contended that the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been repealed with effect from 1 April 2026, when the Income Tax Act, 2025, came into force.
According to them, Section 147A was introduced through the Finance Act, 2026, which was expressed to come into force from 1 April 2026.
They therefore questioned the validity of inserting a provision into the repealed 1961 Act, particularly in the absence of a sufficient legal basis for doing so under the repeal-and-savings provisions of the new legislation.
This issue ultimately became a crucial part of the High Court’s reasoning.
7. The Revenue’s Defence: Why Was Section 147A Considered Necessary?
The Revenue opposed the constitutional challenge.
It argued that legislation enacted by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality and that taxpayers challenging a fiscal enactment must demonstrate a clear violation of constitutional limitations.
The Department emphasised that conflicting judicial interpretations had created uncertainty concerning the authority competent to initiate reassessment proceedings.
According to the Revenue, this uncertainty had resulted in substantial litigation and had affected the functioning of the reassessment machinery.
The Department maintained that the statutory framework contemplated two distinct stages.
At the preliminary stage, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would examine the information suggesting escapement of income, undertake the procedure prescribed under Section 148A and decide whether a notice under Section 148 should be issued.
The subsequent reassessment proceedings under Section 147 could then be undertaken through the prescribed faceless mechanism.
The Revenue argued that Section 147A merely clarified the legislative intention regarding the competent authority at the preliminary stage.
It further contended that Parliament was entitled to enact a retrospective validating provision to remove the legal defect identified in earlier judgments.
According to the Department, the amendment did not retrospectively impose a new tax liability but clarified the procedural authority competent to initiate reassessment proceedings.
The High Court considered the rival submissions while examining the statutory provisions, the legislative history and the effect of the repeal of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Analysis of the Faceless Reassessment Framework
The High Court examined the statutory provisions governing faceless assessment and reassessment, including Sections 144B and 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022.
The Court considered the framework introduced to improve transparency, accountability and efficiency through technology-based allocation and faceless proceedings.
The notification dated 29 March 2022 contemplated that reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 and the issuance of notices under Section 148 would take place through automated allocation and in a faceless manner to the extent provided under Section 144B.
The controversy arose because the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers had initiated the preliminary proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 despite the objections that those functions were required to be performed through the prescribed scheme.
The Revenue argued that the preliminary stage and the subsequent reassessment stage were legally distinct and that the JAO retained authority over the former.
The petitioners, however, maintained that the scheme required the relevant proceedings to follow the faceless framework.
The Court examined this controversy alongside the retrospective amendment and the legislative changes affecting the 1961 Act.
Ultimately, the Court held that Section 147A was unconstitutional and struck it down. It further held that the proceedings initiated by the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148 were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside because they had to be undertaken in a faceless manner.
The final decision is recorded in paragraph 107 of the judgment.
9. The Crucial Legal Issue: Could Parliament Amend a Repealed Act?
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment concerns the relationship between the Finance Act, 2026, the repeal of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the commencement of the Income Tax Act, 2025.
The Income Tax Act, 2025, came into force on 1 April 2026, subject to its commencement provisions.
The Finance Act, 2026, also contained provisions specifying the dates on which its various sections would come into force.
Section 147A was expressed to have retrospective effect from 1 April 2021, even though the Finance Act, 2026, was to come into force on the date specified in that legislation.
The petitioners argued that the legal effect of the repeal could not be disregarded merely because Section 147A purported to operate retrospectively.
The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that the Finance Act, 2026, had received Presidential assent on 30 March 2026, before the repeal of the 1961 Act took effect, and that the retrospective provision was legally valid.
The High Court examined these competing positions with reference to the commencement provisions of the two Acts, the repeal-and-savings framework under Section 536 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, and Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
What did Section 536 provide?
Section 536 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, deals with repeal and savings.
As discussed in the judgment, Section 536(2)(c) preserves the application of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1961, to specified pending and subsequent proceedings concerning tax years beginning before 1 April 2026.
Such proceedings are to be carried out in accordance with the procedure specified in the repealed Act.
Section 536(2)(u) also addresses the continuation of specified schemes notified under the repealed Act for eliminating interaction with taxpayers or other persons.
The Court considered these savings provisions while examining the continued application of the earlier statutory framework.
It then considered the commencement provisions governing the Finance Act, 2026, and the repeal of the 1961 Act.
The Court’s conclusion on the repeal issue
The Court concluded that the Income Tax Act, 1961, stood repealed with effect from the transition to the new Act on 1 April 2026.
It held that the insertion of Section 147A into the repealed legislation was not sustainable in the circumstances examined by it.
The Court relied on the commencement principles contained in Section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and held that an amendment or insertion into the repealed Act, in the circumstances of the case, lacked legal validity.
This reasoning formed an important part of the Court’s conclusion that Section 147A was unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.
The important point is that the Court did not treat the retrospective wording of Section 147A as sufficient, by itself, to overcome the legal difficulty arising from the repeal and commencement provisions.
The repeal issue must, however, be understood in the context of the Court’s overall reasoning. The judgment also dealt with the faceless reassessment framework and the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers.
10. The Final Verdict: Section 147A Declared Unconstitutional
After considering the rival submissions and the relevant statutory framework, the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered its conclusion in paragraph 107.
The Court held that Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unconstitutional and accordingly struck it down.
It further held that the proceedings initiated by the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148 were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside because the proceedings had to be undertaken in a faceless manner.
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned proceedings and orders.
There was no order as to costs, and pending applications were directed to stand closed.
The operative portion of the judgment is particularly important because it goes beyond striking down the amending provision. It also expressly addresses the reassessment proceedings challenged in the batch of writ petitions.
The decision therefore has two principal components:
1. Section 147A was declared unconstitutional and struck down.
2. The impugned proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148 were set aside as being without jurisdiction.
These conclusions must be read with the precise scope of the writ petitions and the final directions issued by the Court.
11. What Does the Judgment Mean for Taxpayers Facing Reassessment Notices?
The judgment is particularly relevant to taxpayers whose reassessment proceedings involve the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the applicability of the faceless reassessment scheme.
However, it is important to distinguish between the legal principle laid down by the Court and the relief available in an individual taxpayer’s case.
A. Reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers
Taxpayers who have received notices under Section 148A or Section 148 from a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer may need to examine whether their proceedings involve the same jurisdictional issue addressed by the judgment.
The decision provides substantial support for challenging proceedings that are inconsistent with the applicable faceless reassessment framework.
Nevertheless, the outcome of an individual case may depend on the assessment year, the relevant notices and orders, the applicable statutory provisions, the procedural history and any subsequent judicial developments.
B. Reassessment orders already passed
Where a reassessment order has already been passed following proceedings initiated by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the taxpayer should examine the nature of the jurisdictional defect and the procedural remedies available.
The judgment expressly set aside the impugned proceedings and orders in the writ petitions before it.
It should not, however, be assumed that every reassessment order passed by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer across India automatically stands cancelled merely because of this judgment.
Taxpayers must examine the applicability of the ruling to their own facts and the status of the relevant proceedings.
C. Pending appeals and writ petitions
The judgment may be relevant in pending proceedings where the validity of reassessment notices or orders is being challenged on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked authority under the faceless reassessment framework.
Taxpayers and their representatives may consider whether the judgment can appropriately be relied upon in their submissions, subject to the facts and procedural posture of the individual case.
D. Cases in which Section 147A has been relied upon
Where the Department has relied upon Section 147A to support the jurisdiction of a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the constitutional ruling becomes particularly relevant.
The precise consequences will depend on the nature of the proceedings, the relief sought, the applicable law and the subsequent status of the judgment.
Professional advice should be taken before deciding the appropriate procedural course.
12. Does the Judgment Automatically Apply Throughout India?
This is an important question.
The decision was delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of writ petitions. Its operative directions allowed those petitions and set aside the proceedings and orders challenged before the Court.
The judgment is therefore directly operative in the cases covered by its final directions.
For taxpayers outside Andhra Pradesh, the judgment may provide an important judicial authority for challenging similar reassessment proceedings. However, its application in another jurisdiction requires consideration of the relevant legal principles, the jurisdiction of the court hearing the matter and any subsequent orders of a higher court.
A High Court judgment should not be equated with a Supreme Court judgment having nationwide precedential authority.
Similarly, the constitutional invalidation of Section 147A is a substantial development, but the subsequent procedural history must be checked before concluding that the position remains unchanged in every jurisdiction.
Accordingly, taxpayers should verify whether the judgment has been appealed, stayed, modified or otherwise affected by subsequent judicial proceedings before relying on it for a current legal decision.
13. Why This Judgment Is Important for Tax Administration
The significance of the ruling extends beyond the immediate controversy concerning Section 147A.
It highlights the importance of consistency between statutory provisions, delegated legislation and administrative action.
The faceless assessment framework was introduced to improve efficiency, transparency and accountability in tax administration.
Where the Government prescribes a statutory mechanism for performing particular functions, the authorities must act within the framework applicable to those functions.
The controversy illustrates the consequences that can arise when the jurisdiction of an authority is disputed and the law is subsequently amended with retrospective effect.
It also raises an important question concerning legislative drafting: when Parliament seeks to clarify the meaning of an existing provision or validate earlier administrative action, the amendment must be legally sustainable within the constitutional and statutory framework.
The decision further demonstrates the importance of carefully examining commencement clauses, repeal provisions and savings clauses when determining the legal effect of an amendment introduced during a transition between two statutory regimes.
For tax professionals, the judgment provides a reminder that reassessment litigation is not confined to whether income has escaped assessment. The jurisdiction of the officer, the prescribed procedure, the validity of the governing legislation and compliance with the applicable statutory scheme can be equally significant.
14. Important Questions and Answers on the Section 147A Judgment
Q1. What is the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment on Section 147A?
On 12 October 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court declared Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unconstitutional and struck it down in a batch of writ petitions. The Court also set aside the impugned reassessment proceedings and orders challenged before it.
Q2. Why was Section 147A introduced?
Section 147A was introduced by the Finance Act, 2026, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2021. It sought to clarify that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A meant an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or an assessment unit under Section 144B(3).
Q3. What was the main dispute concerning Section 147A?
The principal dispute concerned whether Jurisdictional Assessing Officers could initiate proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 after the introduction of the faceless reassessment framework under Section 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022.
Q4. What is the significance of Section 151A?
Section 151A empowers the Central Government to formulate schemes for specified assessment and reassessment functions to promote efficiency, transparency and accountability. The notification dated 29 March 2022 provided for automated allocation and faceless handling of specified reassessment functions.
Q5. Did the Supreme Court previously uphold Section 147A?
No. In its order dated 10 April 2026, the Supreme Court remitted the matters to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. It expressly left the constitutional validity and other questions concerning the amendment open for decision by the High Courts.
Q6. What did the Andhra Pradesh High Court hold regarding reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers?
The Court held that the proceedings initiated by the respective Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148 in the cases before it were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside because the proceedings had to be undertaken in a faceless manner.
Q7. Does the judgment mean that every reassessment notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid?
The judgment provides a significant basis for challenging proceedings involving the jurisdictional issue addressed by the Court. However, the applicability of the decision to an individual case depends on the facts, the applicable statutory framework, the relief sought and subsequent judicial developments. It should not be assumed that every notice across India automatically stands cancelled.
Q8. Why is the repeal of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant?
The Court considered the commencement of the Income Tax Act, 2025, the repeal of the 1961 Act, the commencement provisions of the Finance Act, 2026, and the repeal-and-savings provisions of the new legislation. It concluded that the insertion of Section 147A into the repealed Act was not sustainable in the circumstances examined.
Q9. Can taxpayers rely on this judgment in pending reassessment litigation?
The judgment may be relevant in pending proceedings involving similar jurisdictional issues. Taxpayers should examine the facts of their cases and verify the subsequent status of the judgment before relying upon it.
15. Conclusion: A Landmark Ruling on Reassessment Jurisdiction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment dated 12 October 2026 marks a significant development in the continuing debate over faceless reassessment under the Income Tax Act.
By striking down Section 147A as unconstitutional, the Court rejected the legislative amendment in the form in which it had been introduced and held that the impugned proceedings initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers under Sections 148A and 148 were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
The ruling is important for three principal reasons.
First, it reinforces the significance of the statutory framework governing faceless reassessment and the need for tax authorities to act within the applicable procedure.
Second, it highlights the legal limitations surrounding retrospective amendments, particularly where such amendments seek to address jurisdictional defects identified in judicial proceedings.
Third, it demonstrates the importance of examining the commencement and repeal provisions of legislation when determining whether an amendment to an earlier statute is legally sustainable.
For taxpayers and tax professionals, the judgment offers an important basis for examining reassessment proceedings involving similar issues. At the same time, its application must be assessed carefully in light of the precise facts, the relief granted in the relevant case and any subsequent judicial developments.
The larger lesson is that reassessment proceedings must be conducted by the legally competent authority and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The power to reassess income cannot be divorced from the statutory framework that governs the exercise of that power.
Editorial note: This article is based on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s common order dated 12 October 2026 in W.P. No. 28520 of 2023 and connected matters, particularly paragraphs 103–107. Before publication or reliance in litigation, the final judgment should be checked for any subsequent appeal, stay or modification. The article discusses the judgment’s conclusions and is not a substitute for advice on an individual reassessment proceeding.
The copy of the order is as under:
