Empire Fasteners Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
Delhi HC Reaffirms T.K.S. Builders: JAO & FAO Have Concurrent Powers for Reassessment- SLP Dismissal in Patil Case Not Binding—Delhi HC Sticks to T.K.S. Builders View on Concurrent Jurisdiction
Empire Fasteners challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2019-20 through notice u/s 148A(1) dt 08.03.2025 & consequential order & notice both dt 27.06.2025, on the ground that the proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated under the Faceless Reassessment Scheme & Sec 151A.
Petitioner argued that as per the rulings of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT & Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO (W.P. No.10749/2024), only the Faceless AO possesses jurisdiction. He stressed that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue’s SLP in Prakash Pandurang Patil on 18.08.2025, thereby affirming the Bombay HC view that reassessment by a JAO is invalid.
Revenue contended that the issue stands concluded by the Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7508) which held that both JAO & FAO enjoy concurrent jurisdiction. Further relied on the Supreme Court decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (2019) 4 SCC 376 to submit that dismissal of an SLP in limine without reasons does not amount to affirmation of law under Article 141. He also cited Delhi HC’s later rulings in PC Jeweller Ltd. v. ACIT (23.01.2025), Mala Petrochemicals & Polymers v. ITO (19.08.2025), Mehak Jagga v. ITO (28.08.2025), & All India Kataria Education Society v. DCIT (15.09.2025), where similar petitions were dismissed following T.K.S. Builders.
