Aditya Park Properties Private Limited Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Orissa High Court)
Summary: The Orissa High Court, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, considered the writ petition filed by Aditya Park Properties Private Limited against the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and others. The controversy concerned the competence of a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of following the prescribed faceless mechanism. In its order dated 5 May 2026, the High Court examined the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision dated 10 April 2026, which had remitted a batch of similar reassessment disputes for fresh consideration following the insertion of Section 147A.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 April 2026 in Diary No. 55409 of 2025. The Supreme Court had taken note of divergent judgments delivered by different High Courts regarding whether reassessment proceedings could validly be initiated by a JAO instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer. The controversy had arisen under the statutory scheme governing faceless reassessment notices. Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Finance Act, 2026, inserting Section 147A with retrospective effect from 1 April 2021. The new provision clarified the meaning of Assessing Officer for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A, notwithstanding the faceless assessment provisions and judicial decisions.
In the cited Supreme Court decision, the judgments of various High Courts quashing reassessment notices solely on the ground that JAOs lacked jurisdiction were set aside on that limited ground and the matters were remitted for fresh examination. Importantly, the Supreme Court did not finally adjudicate the constitutional validity of Section 147A. Instead, affected assessees were granted liberty to amend their writ petitions within the prescribed period so that the newly inserted provision could be challenged. The Orissa High Court applied this procedural direction and granted Aditya Park Properties Private Limited liberty to file an application for amendment of its writ petition, if it intended to challenge Section 147A.
The High Court further directed that any such amendment application should be listed within 48 hours of filing, subject to the period stipulated in the Supreme Court’s order. Regarding interim protection, the Court expressly noted that the Supreme Court had already stayed further assessment and reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices. Consequently, the High Court considered it unnecessary to grant any additional interim relief. The order therefore preserved the petitioner’s opportunity to challenge the new statutory provision while recognising the existing interim protection. The High Court did not quash the reassessment notice, declare Section 147A unconstitutional or finally decide the JAO-versus-FAO jurisdictional dispute.
Cases Discussed
1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Others Vs Tej Partap Singh — Supreme Court; order dated 10/04/2026; Diary No. 55409 of 2025 referred to in the supplied High Court order. The Supreme Court set aside earlier High Court judgments on the limited question of JAO competence in light of Section 147A, remanded the matters for reconsideration and permitted affected assessees to amend their writ petitions to challenge the new provision. The Orissa High Court expressly relied on this decision.147
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Our attention is drawn to the order 10th April, 2026 passed by the Apex Court in Diary No.55409 of 2025 disposing of the Special Leave Petition, where the issue was raised as to whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was competent enough to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of adopting the prescribed Faceless Mechanism adopted by Competent Faceless Assessing Officer. The spate of litigations were pending across the High Courts of the Country, where divergent views were expressed in this regard. The Apex Court ultimately held that an amendment has been brought by inserting Section 147A to the Income Tax Act, clarifying the position creating an impasse that has been created on the said issue and on the basis thereof, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of with the categorical finding:
“22. Since the High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the JAOs lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgments in favor of the assesses are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are accordingly remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.”
2. However, all the assesses, who have approached the High Courts across the Country were permitted to amend the writ petition within the time stipulated therein, so that the challenge to a newly inserted provision can be made.
3. In view of the liberty having granted by the Apex Court, the petitioner is also granted leave to file an application for amendment of the writ petition if he intends to challenge the newly inserted provision, i.e., Section 147A of the Income Tax Act within the time stipulated in the said order. In terms of the liberty granted by the Apex Court, list the said application within forty-eight hours from the date of filing of the same.
4. It is, however, made clear that the Apex Court has already passed an interim order of stay of the further assessment/re-assessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices and, therefore, no further interim order need to be recorded in this regard.
