Ajit Vasant Lokur Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
Faceless Means Faceless – AO Tries to Show Face, HC Shows Him the Exit- Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by AO instead of Faceless Authority – All 148A & 148 actions struck down
In this writ petition, Assessee challenged the entire reassessment initiation process for AY 2019-20, including:
- Notice u/s 148A(b) dated 14.03.2025
- Order u/s 148A(d) dated 27.06.2025
- Notice u/s 148 dated 27.06.2025
The sole ground raised was procedural illegality – the notices and order were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) rather than the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), despite reassessment being covered under the Faceless Assessment Scheme (Section 144B).
High Court’s Observation
The Court noted that this exact issue-whether reassessment notices/orders can be issued by AO instead of Faceless Authority-is already pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 27736/2023 (Union of India vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills). Given this, the Court held that the impugned notices and order suffer from a jurisdictional defect and cannot be sustained.
Order of the Court
- Writ Petition allowed.
- Certiorari issued.
- The following are quashed:
- Notice u/s 148A(1) dated 14.03.2025,
- Order u/s 148A(3) dated 27.06.2025,
- Notice u/s 148 dated 27.06.2025.
- Parties shall be bound by the final decision of the Supreme Court in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills and act accordingly.
Key Takeaway
- Reassessment must follow faceless procedure.
- If jurisdictional AO issues notices instead of NFAC, the entire proceeding is void.
- Courts are consistently protecting procedural safeguards.
Statutory faceless scheme is mandatory. Any deviation by the AO is a jurisdictional error, not a curable irregularity. Once again, Karnataka HC aligns with earlier rulings and keeps reassessment actions on hold pending the Supreme Court’s final word.
