Yukti Export Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Delhi HC Reaffirms Concurrent JAO-FAO Jurisdiction Despite SC SLP Dismissals- Reassessment Jurisdiction Row Continues — Delhi HC Refuses to Read Down T.K.S. Builders
Delhi High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions all raising a common jurisdictional issue — whether reassessment proceedings u/s 148 can be initiated only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) u/s 151A, or whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) continues to retain concurrent power.
Petitioners’ Stand
Assessee argued that the issue is already settled in favour of the Faceless AO by multiple High Courts- notably Bombay HC in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. & Prakash Pandurang Patil, & Telangana HC in Deepanjan Roy & Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Revenue’s SLPs in Prakash Pandurang Patil (18.08.2025) & Deepanjan Roy on merits amounts to affirmation of the Bombay HC view, making it binding under Article 141.
According to him, Delhi HC’s earlier decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024 167 taxmann.com 759), recognising concurrent jurisdiction of JAO & FAO, was per incuriam as it ignored Section 151A & the Supreme Court’s binding position.
Revenue’s Defence
Dept argued that within Delhi’s jurisdiction, T.K.S. Builders continues to hold the field — both JAO & FAO possess concurrent powers to issue reassessment notices. Also submitted that the Supreme Court’s SLP dismissals in Prakash Pandurang Patil or Deepanjan Roy were non-speaking orders, merely refusals to entertain appeals, & hence do not amount to declaration of law under Article 141.
