The Delhi High Court, in Inder Dev Gupta Vs ACIT, dismissed writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) post-insertion of Section 151A and the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. Petitioners argued that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) under NFAC can issue such notices after 31.03.2023, relying on rulings from other High Courts and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP in Deepanjan Roy. The Court rejected these claims, reaffirming Delhi precedents, particularly TKS Builders Pvt Ltd v. ITO, holding that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Non-speaking dismissals of SLPs were held non-precedential. Interim stays in unrelated cases did not affect the legal position in Delhi. Consequently, the reassessment notices issued by JAO were valid, and all writ petitions and interim applications were dismissed as infructuous, reaffirming the Delhi HC’s consistent position on reassessment jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court decided a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after insertion of Section 151A and the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. The Petitioners argued that after 31.03.2023, only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) under NFAC can issue notices u/s 148; hence all notices issued by JAO were void. They relied on Bombay, Telangana, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan High Court rulings such as Hexaware Technologies, Prakash Pandurang Patil, Venus Jewel, Royal Bitumen, Everest Kanto, Arene Life Sciences etc., all holding that only FAO has jurisdiction. They also relied on the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP in Deepanjan Roy, claiming it affirmed the FAO-exclusive position.
The Revenue argued that Delhi High Court has consistently held—beginning with TKS Builders Pvt Ltd v. ITO—that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148, and no contrary stay has been granted by the Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed this consistent view, noting that TKS Builders remains binding and operative within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. The mere dismissal of an SLP in limine, without detailed reasons, does not constitute affirmation of the lower court’s reasoning nor does it amount to a declaration of law under Article 141. The Court relied on Fuljit Kaur, Kunhayammed, Khoday Distilleries, and State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das to reiterate the principle that non-speaking dismissal of SLP has no precedential effect.
The petitioners’ claims that certain Supreme Court interim orders staying reassessment proceedings in unrelated matters (e.g., All India Kataria Education Society, Yukti Exports) implied a stay of the legal position in TKS Builders were rejected. The Court held that the Supreme Court has not stayed TKS Builders, nor has it declared that only FAO can issue notices.
Reaffirming its earlier judgments (TKS Builders, Mala Petrochemicals, Mehak Jagga, Empire Fasteners), the Court held that until the Supreme Court decides the issue, the Delhi position remains: both JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction. As such, reassessment notices issued by the JAO cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, all writ petitions were dismissed and all interim applications were disposed of as infructuous.
Author Bio
