Facts of the Case

The batch of writ petitions, including the lead case of Sulochna Goel, challenged reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The principal challenge was confined to the jurisdictional issue—whether reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were invalid in view of the Faceless Assessment and Reassessment Scheme introduced under Sections 144B and 151A of the Act, read with notifications issued by the Central Government.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are invalid under the Faceless Reassessment Scheme.
  2. Whether Sections 144B and 151A mandate exclusive jurisdiction of faceless authorities, thereby denuding the JAO of power.
  3. Whether reassessment proceedings initiated post Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal comply with statutory requirements.
  4. Whether concurrent jurisdiction exists between the JAO and faceless assessment units.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Once the Faceless Reassessment Scheme was notified, reassessment proceedings including issuance of notice under Section 148 could only be undertaken through faceless mechanisms.
  • Jurisdictional Assessing Officers stood divested of authority to issue reassessment notices.
  • Reliance was placed on judgments of the Bombay, Telangana, Gauhati, Punjab & Haryana High Courts, which had quashed reassessment notices issued by JAOs post-notification of the Faceless Scheme.
  • The reassessment action violated the legislative intent of eliminating direct interface and ensuring automated allocation.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Sections 144B and 151A do not extinguish the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
  • The Faceless Scheme is procedural and intended to enhance efficiency, not to invalidate jurisdiction otherwise conferred by statute.
  • Reassessment notices were issued in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal.
  • The Act contemplates concurrent jurisdiction, and reassessment proceedings were lawfully initiated.

 

Court Order / Findings

  • The Delhi High Court held that neither Section 144B nor Section 151A expressly or impliedly divests the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the power to issue notices under Section 148.
  • The Court rejected the contention that faceless procedures confer exclusive jurisdiction on faceless authorities.
  • It was held that the statutory scheme permits concurrent jurisdiction, and reassessment proceedings initiated by the JAO are valid in law.
  • The Court distinguished and declined to follow contrary views taken by other High Courts.
  • The faceless scheme was held to be a procedural framework and not a jurisdiction-ousting provision.

 

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that:

  • Faceless assessment and reassessment schemes aim to enhance transparency and efficiency but do not override substantive statutory jurisdiction.
  • Absence of faceless allocation at the notice-issuance stage does not vitiate reassessment proceedings per se.
  • Jurisdictional defects cannot be inferred unless expressly provided by statute.

 

Final Outcome

All writ petitions, including that of Sulochna Goel, were dismissed. The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers and confirmed that reassessment proceedings may continue in accordance with law.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770114420_SULOCHNAGOELVsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAXCIRCLE431DELHIANDANR..pdf  

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.