Telangana High Court
Mohammed Aleemuddin vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incometax on 14 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024
AND 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)
These are batch of writ petitions involving the same issue.
Therefore, they are clubbed together and are being decided by this
common order.
2. Heard Mr. A. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor of
India. Ms. Rutuja Pawar, learned counsel, along with Mr. Dundu
Sashank Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition
Nos.26645, 26654, 26667 of 2024; Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned
counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.28497 and 26788 of
2024; Mr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.12437 of 2025; Mr. Govinda Rao, learned counsel
for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9561 of 2025, Mr. K.S.S.K.V.
Raghava Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms. Mytri Indukuru,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.14549, 14664
and 14674 of 2025 and Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel,
Page 2 of 24
representing Mr. S.K. Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No.12873 of 2025. Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the
respondents in Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788
of 2024, 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664 & 14674 of 2025; and
Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax
Department for the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.12773 & 12437
of 2025.
3. The primary challenge in all these writ petitions is to the notice
under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’)
issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short ‘JAO’) in
each of the writ petitions. The challenge is firstly, the JAO not having
jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and the notices ought to
have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (for short ‘FAO’)
and, secondly, the impugned notices being in contravention to the
explanation to Section 151A of the Act and also in violation of the e-
Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 read with
the notification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, the
‘CBDT’) dated 29.03.2022.
Page 3 of 24
4. The notices in this batch of writ petitions were in relation to
cases assigned to “central charges”.
5. The question for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is
“whether in cases assigned to “central charges” the notice issued
under Section 148 of the Act could have been issued by JAO or it
ought to have been as per the amendment carried out w.e.f.
01.04.2021 in a faceless manner?”
6. So far as, whether a notice under Section 148 of the Act on or
after 01.04.2021 has to be issued mandatorily by the FAO is not
contended or disputed by either of the parties, as the said aspect stands
decided in a large number of writ petitions by this High Court in the
case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. The Income Tax Officer 1.
The said view was also followed by many other High Courts and the
issue arising out of all the High Courts is seized by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a large number of S.L.Ps. preferred by the Income
Tax Department.
1
Writ Petition No.25903 of 2022 & Batch, decided on 14.09.2023
Page 4 of 24
7. All the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily relied upon
the aforesaid judgment of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) and
which was subsequently also made applicable in the case of
“international charges” by the Division Bench of this High Court in
the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad and
Others 2, wherein again the core question raised for adjudication was
whether the show-cause notices under Section 148 of the Act in
matters relating to “international charges” would stand exempted or
excluded from the faceless procedure and has to be quashed only on
that ground.
8. Apart from the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the
petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court
dealing with similar circumstances in the case of Hexaware
Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
and Others 3 . However, in all these writ petitions, the counsel
representing the Income Tax Department vehemently contended that
2
Writ Petition No.13353 of 2024 & Batch, decided on 24.07.2024
3
(2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)
Page 5 of 24these cases since assigned to “central charges”, there is slight
difference on facts and law so far as the applicability of Kankanala
Ravindra Reddy (supra) at the first instance, and Sri
Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra) in the second instance, and
they wanted to distinguish and contend that this batch of writ petitions
would be an exclusion or an exception so far as the proceedings to be
drawn in a faceless manner is concerned.
9. Mr. A. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India led the arguments on behalf of the Income Tax Department in
all these writ petitions.
10. It was the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General
that in all the writ petitions before this Court where the cases pertain
to central charges has arisen from the search and seizure proceedings
initiated by the Income Tax Department. It was also the contention
that the proceedings initiated or arising out of a search and seizure
cannot be equated with the normal assessment proceedings drawn
under the statute. It was also the contention that a faceless proceeding
is to be adopted in case of a normal regular assessment proceeding and
not where the proceedings have been drawn subsequent to search and
Page 6 of 24seizure. It was also contended that unless the notices in these cases are
not issued by the JAO, the Department would find it extremely
difficult in adhering to the requirement of law under Section 153D of
the Act.
11. Reading through the provisions of Section 153D of the Act, the
learned Additional Solicitor General contended that in order to ensure
compliance as is required therein, it would become necessary for the
proceedings to be initiated at the first instance by the JAO and, it was
in this context, that these notices have been issued and the same
therefore cannot be found fault with and the petitioners do not have
any claim and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
12. It was the further contention of the learned Additional Solicitor
General that recently the Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and
Talati LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 4 held that
notice under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner as per the
scheme framed by notification dated 28.03.2022 cannot be applied to
cases of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act and, in such
circumstances, it would be the JAO who is required to record his
4
(2024) 167 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat)
Page 7 of 24satisfaction on the basis of the material collected during the course of
the search.
13. Learned Additional Solicitor General also referred to a recent
decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders (P.)
Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer5, wherein reiterating the view expressed
by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and Talati LLP
(supra), the Delhi High Court had dismissed the batch of writ
petitions.
14. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General for
evaluation of data, there is a mandatory requirement of JAO and when
it is a case arising out of search and seizure, keeping in view the
provisions of Section 153D of the Act, the safest inference that can be
drawn is that there is a concurrent jurisdiction available on the JAO as
also the FAO and for evaluation of the data also the services of JAO
would be required. It was also contended by the learned Additional
Solicitor General that the provisions of the Act have to be
implemented keeping in consideration the harmonious construction
5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7508
Page 8 of 24and that the provisions of the statute has to be applied by giving a
beneficial construction.
15. It was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General
that clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 144B of the Act requires
that the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the selected
cases for the purpose of faceless assessment through automated
allocation system. Clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 144B of the
Act for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:
“(i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the
case selected for the purposes of faceless assessment under this
section to a specific assessment unit through an automated
allocation system.”
16. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that in cases of “central charges”, there is no requirement to
conduct proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and hence the
notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in case of “central
charges” cannot be issued on automated allocation system.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, particularly
the learned Additional Solicitor General extensively, it would be
necessary at this juncture to take note of the decision rendered in the
Page 9 of 24
case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) wherein the Division
Bench of this High Court in a batch of writ petitions, has held in
paragraph Nos.35 to 38 as under:
“35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very
clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent-
Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment
being under Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was
mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted
provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In the
absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the
procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is in
contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2021, at the
first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to the
directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ashish Agarwal, supra.
36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices
issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-
Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so
issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves
to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed.
37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is
sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this
very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and
orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are
not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues
raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and
contended in an appropriate proceedings.
Page 10 of 24
38. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case of
Ashish Agarwal (1 supra) as a one-time measure exercising
the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted
provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the
procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would
remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the
stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish
Agarwal (1 supra).”
18. From the aforesaid judgment and the principles of which have
been reiterated in a large number of writ petitions subsequently filed,
it would be evidently clear that the view of this High Court and the
ratio laid down was that on and after coming into force of the Finance
Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and with the introduction of the
amendment to Section 148 of the Act wherein it was envisaged that
the assessments have to be done by way of an automated faceless
mechanism, all proceedings of assessment drawn subsequently have to
be by following the same mechanism. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish
Agarwal6, in very categorical terms has held as under:
“Thus, the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021
being remedial and benevolent in nature and substituted with a6
2022 SCC OnLine SC 543
Page 11 of 24specific aim and object to protect the rights and interest of the
assessee as well as and the same being in public interest, the
respective High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new
provisions shall be made available even in respect of the
proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided
section 148 notice has been issued on or after April 1, 2021.
We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
various High Courts in holding so.
However, at the same time, the judgments of the several High
Courts would result in no reassessment proceedings at all,
even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021
and as per substituted sections 147.
The Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and
purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is
true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent
extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued
the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment
was enforced with effect from April 1, 2021, under the
unamended section 148. In our view the same ought not to
have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have
been issued under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to
151 of the Income-tax Act as per the Finance Act, 2021. There
appears to be genuine non-application of the amendments as
the officers of the Revenue may have been under a bona fide
belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that some leeway must be
shown in that regard which the High Courts could have done
so. Therefore, instead of quashing and setting aside the
reassessment notices issued under the unamended provisions
Page 12 of 24of the Income-tax Act as those deemed to have been issued
under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as per the new
provisions of section 148A and the Revenue ought to have been
permitted to proceed further with the reassessment
proceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections 147 to
151 of the Income-tax Act as per the Finance Act, 2021,
subject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and
the defences, which may be available to the assessee under the
substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax
Act and which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021
and in law. Therefore, we propose to modify the judgments and
orders passed by the respective High Courts as under:
(i) The respective impugned section 148 notices issued to
the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been
issued under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as
substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be
show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The
respective Assessing Officers shall within thirty days
from today provide to the asseessees the information
and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the
asseessees can reply to the notices within two weeks
thereafter;
(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the
prior approval of the specified authority under section
148A9(a) be dispensed with as a onetime measure vis-à-
vis those notices which have been issued under section
148 of the unamended Act from April 1,
(iii) The Assessing Officers shall thereafter pass an order in
terms of section 148A(d) after following the due
Page 13 of 24
procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect
of each of the concerned assessees” ;”
19. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), it has been emphatically held by the
Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Ravindra Reddy
(supra) that there is no further dispute to be adjudicated so far as what
is the mechanism which has to be applied for assessment / re-
assessment even if it is for assessment of previous years if the
proceedings have been initiated on or after 01.04.2021. It has to be
only through automated faceless mechanism and no other way.
19.1. Hence, the question of law as framed in the earlier paragraph of
this order is “whether in the case of central charges, could the
aforementioned principles of law be deviated and whether the
proceedings drawn under the central charges could be by the JAO or it
too has to be in a faceless manner?”
20. The CBDT in respect of the same had issued a notification
dated 29.03.2022 in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (1) and
(2) of Section 151A of the Act and, framed a scheme, which for ready
reference is reproduced hereunder:
Page 14 of 24
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 29th March, 2022S.O. 1466(E):– In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
sections (1) and (2) of section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43
of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following
Scheme, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement:– (1) This Scheme may be
called the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme,
2022.
(2) It shall come into force with effect from the date of its
publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Definitions:– (1) In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise
requires, —
(a) “Act” means the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961);
(b) “automated allocation” means an algorithm for randomised
allocation of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including
artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimise
the use of resources.
(2) Words and expressions used herein and not defined, but
defined in the Act, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to
them in the Act.
3. Scope of the Scheme:– For the purpose of this Scheme,–
(a) assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 of
the Act,
(b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be
through automated allocation, in accordance with risk
management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in
section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless
manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with
reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or
loss of assessee.
(Emphasis supplied)
Page 15 of 24
21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in
exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act introduced certain
exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order
dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder:
Section 144B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
144B. Faceless Assessment:
(1)…
(2) The faceless assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made
in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons, or
incomes or class of incomes, or cases or class of cases, as may be
specified by the Board.
(Emphasis Supplied)
CBDT’s Order dated 06.09.2021:
F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-I
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
(Central Board of Direct Taxes)
*****
North Block, New Delhi
Dated, the 6th September, 2021.
ORDER
Subject:- Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 (the Act) providing exclusions to section 144B of the Act.The Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 (the Scheme) has been
incorporated in the Act vide the Taxation and Other Laws
(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
Section 144B of the Act pertaining to Faceless Assessment has
been inserted by the said amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Order F.No.187/3/2020-
ITA-I dated 13th August, 2020 (the Order) read with order under
Page 16 of 24
section 119 of the Act regarding mutatis mutandis application of
Orders, Circulars etc., issued in order to implement the Scheme to
Faceless Assessment u/s 144B of the Act, F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-I
dated 31st March, 2021 directed that all the Assessment Orders
shall be passed by the National Facelss Assessment Centre
(NaFAC) u/s 144B of the Act except as under:-
i. Assessment orders in cases assigned to Central Charges.
ii. Assessment Orders in cases assigned to International Tax
Charges.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. A plain reading of the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2021
conjointly with the notification dated 29.03.2022 would go to show
that the CBDT has in fact carved out two exceptions so far as
implementing the scheme of faceless assessment. Those two
exceptions are (i) assessment orders in cases assigned to central
charges; and (ii) assessment orders in cases assigned to international
tax charges. So far as the assessment orders in cases assigned to
international tax charges, recently the said exception was under
challenge in a batch of writ petitions before this High Court in the
case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra). While deciding
the said batch of writ petitions, the Hon’ble Division Bench hearing
the said writ petitions took note of the order dated 06.09.2021 and
notification dated 29.03.2022 and in very categorical terms held in
paragraph Nos.23, 24, 27 and 29 as under:
Page 17 of 24
“23. It is noteworthy that the order of CBDT dated
06.09.2021 deals with “assessment orders”. The said order is
passed in exercise of power under Section 144B of the Act.
The order of CBDT is clear that direction was issued about
passing of “assessment orders” by the National Faceless
Assessment Centre under Section 144B of the Act except in
two situations, one of which is passing of assessment orders
in cases assigned to International Tax Charges.
24. Thus, there is no cavil of doubt that Section 144B of the
Act and order of CBDT dated 06.09.2021 give exemption
from following the mandatory faceless procedure only in
relation to passing of assessment orders in cases of central
charges and international tax charges. Any other
interpretation would amount to doing violence with the
language employed in the scheme/notification dated
29.03.2022, Section 144B(2) of the Act and order dated
06.09.2021. Since in our view, the plain and unambiguous
language used in the scheme and order dated 06.09.2021
shows that the notice under Section 148 does not fall within
the ‘exception’, the judgments cited by the learned Senior
Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department are of no
assistance. The Taxpayer is nowhere distinguished between
NRIs and Indian Citizens. The notice issued under Section
148 must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether
or not the Taxpayer is NRI/Indian Citizen. Thus, the second
limb of argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for
Income Tax Department deserves to be rejected.
Page 18 of 24
27. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the
Bombay High Court and are of the opinion that the aforesaid
underlined expression used in clause 3(b) of the scheme dated
29.03.2022 does not preclude the mandatory faceless
procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Any other interpretation, in our humble view, will not only
cause violence to the language used, but will also defeat the
object for which a transparent ‘faceless procedure’ was
introduced. Hence, we are unable to persuade ourselves to
accept a different meaning than the literal meaning flowing
and conveyed from the provisions.
29. In view of foregoing analysis, it is clear that the
respondents have erred in not following the mandatory
faceless procedure as prescribed in the scheme dated
29.03.2022. Since notices under Section 148 of the Act were
not issued in a faceless manner, the entire further proceeding
founded upon it and assessment orders stand vitiated. Thus,
the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act and all
consequential assessment orders based thereupon are set
aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed
against the petitioners in accordance with law.”
23. A plain reading of paragraph Nos.23 and 24 would make the
picture very clear so far as the fact that even though the batch of writ
petitions in the case Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)
were primarily pertaining to assessment orders in cases assigned to
international tax charges, but the Division Bench has also dealt with
Page 19 of 24
the aspect of the assessment orders in cases assigned to central
charges as well holding that it would not make any difference whether
it is cases assigned to central charges or cases assigned to international
tax charges. What was held was that, once when the statute
substantially mandate having the assessment proceedings drawn
through automated scheme allocation in a faceless manner,
subsequently there does not seem to be any exceptions carved out
permitting the JAO to issue proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.
24. In view of the said view expressed by the Division Bench of
this High Court in the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola
(supra), we are of the considered opinion that, if at all if we accept the
analogy canvassed by the Income Tax Department, that by itself
would be diluting the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and at the same time it would also
water down the series of writ petitions where the proceedings were
issued by JAO and this High Court while allowing the writ petitions
had set aside those proceedings.
25. The entire basis of the learned Additional Solicitor General
seems to be the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Page 20 of 24
T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, since there is an
authoritative decision on the said issue by this very High Court, the
judicial propriety requires for this Bench to honor the view taken by
the Division Bench of this High Court itself.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bhopal vs. G.M., Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. 7 ,
dealing with an issue of not following the judgment of the
jurisdictional High Court, held at paragraph No.9 as under:
“9. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the Income Tax
Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that
the Revenue Authorities within the State could refuse to follow
the jurisdictional High Court’s decision on the ground that
the decision of some other High Court was pending disposal
by this Court, it would lead to an anarchic situation within
the State. If at the time when the power under Section 263 was
exercised the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had
not been set aside by this Court or at least had not been
appealed from, it would not be open to the Commissioner to
have proceeded on the basis that the High Court was
erroneous and that the assessing officer who had acted in
terms of the High Court’s decision had acted erroneously.”7
2003 11 Supreme Court Cases 441
Page 21 of 24
27. Apart from the effect of judicial propriety, we are of the
considered opinion that plain reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) seems to be
more convincing and logical as compared to the judgment heavily
relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General i.e. the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders (P.)
Ltd. (supra).
28. So far as the ground raised by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that unless the notices in cases pertaining to central charges
are issued by JAO it would be difficult to enforce the requirement as
is otherwise required under Section 153D of the Act is concerned, we
need to look into the provisions of Section 153D as to what it speaks
for. For ready reference, the relevant portion of Section 153D is
reproduced hereunder:
“153D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases or
requisition.
No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an
Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in
respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b)
of [sub-section (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153-B,
except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”
Page 22 of 24
A plain reading of the aforesaid Section would show that the
provisions of Section 153D would be applicable in proceedings drawn
under Section 153A and Section 153B.
29. Section 153A of the Act speaks of how assessment in a case of
search and seizure or requisition is to be made. For ready reference,
the relevant portion of Section 153A is also reproduced hereunder:
“153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition.
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section
147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in
the case of a person where a search is initiated under section
132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are
requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May,
2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021], the
Assessing Officer shall–
(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to
furnish within such period, as may be specified
in the notice, the return of income in respect of
each assessment year falling within six
assessment years and for the relevant
assessment year or years referred to in clause
(b), in the prescribed form and verified in the
prescribed manner and setting forth such other
particulars as may be prescribed and the
provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,
apply accordingly as if such return were a
Page 23 of 24
return required to be furnished under section
139;
(b) assess or reassess the total income of six
assessment years immediately preceding the
assessment year relevant to the previous year in
which such search is conducted or requisition is
made and for the relevant assessment year or
years.”
A plain reading of the aforesaid Section would clearly indicate
that though Section 153A is a non-obstante clause, but nowhere does
the said Section speaks of an exception carved out from Section 151A,
which in itself was brought in by way of amendment to the Finance
Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. This in other words means that until and
unless there is a specific exception carved out from the applicability of
Section 151A every assessment proceedings initiated even if it be after
a search and seizure proceedings, even if it be under central charges or
international tax charges, the provisions of Section 151A is what has
to be adhered to for the purpose of initiating a proceeding of
assessment / re-assessment. Section 151A also does not anywhere say
that the said provision of law shall not be applicable in a given
situation or under any other provision of law.
Page 24 of 24
30. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the
present batch of writ petitions also deserve to be and are accordingly
allowed quashing the impugned orders under challenge as they are in
violation of the provisions enacted by way of Finance Act, 2021
which came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Accordingly, we hold that
the question of law framed, as to “whether in cases assigned to central
charges and the notices issued therein for reassessment could be
issued by the JAO or it has to be in a faceless manner” stands decided
in favour of the petitioners holding that it can be in a faceless manner
alone and the question of law thus stands answered against the
Revenue. No costs.
31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_______________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date: 14.07.2025
GSD