Reassessment proceedings under faceless assessment regime: jurisdictional assessing officer may continue proceedings when original notice issued.

Reassessment under the faceless regime requires the same assessing officer who issued the original Section 148 notice to examine replies treated as notices under the new 148A procedure; therefore the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) may continue enquiry and pass assessment or reassessment orders following the new procedure. The court held that jurisdiction was not divested where the initial notice originated with the JAO, subject to following faceless-regime processes; merits of assessments can be agitated on appeal and delay in filing appeals will be condoned where writs were pending. All writ petitions dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question addressed in this judgment is whether the jurisdictional assessing officer could initiate and continue proceedings and pass assessment orders in cases where original notices issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer were treated as issued under the new regime by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Aggarwal and considered within limitation as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Legality of proceedings initiated by jurisdictional assessing officers under the old regime post-amendment.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The judgment discusses the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, which brought in the faceless assessment and reassessment procedures under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court's decisions in Ashish Aggarwal and Rajeev Bansal are pivotal, as they address the transition from the old to the new regime and the applicability of the new provisions to notices issued after April 1, 2021.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The court interpreted that the jurisdictional assessing officer retains the authority to process notices originally issued under the old regime, which are deemed to be issued under the new Section 148A(b) by the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that the same officer who issued the original notices should be allowed to complete the assessment or reassessment process, as the Supreme Court's directions in Ashish Aggarwal's case did not explicitly remove this jurisdiction.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The court found that the procedural part of the new regime was intended to be followed by the jurisdictional assessing officer, who had originally issued the notices under the old regime. The court emphasized the need for continuity in the assessment process to ensure that the proceedings reach a logical conclusion.

Application of Law to Facts:

The court applied the provisions of Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act, as amended, to the facts of the case. It concluded that the jurisdictional assessing officer has the authority to proceed with the assessment or reassessment based on the notices deemed to be issued under the new regime.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The court addressed the petitioners' arguments that the jurisdictional assessing officer lacked authority under the new faceless regime. It refuted these arguments by stating that the Supreme Court's directions allowed the jurisdictional assessing officer to continue the proceedings, as the initial notices were deemed valid under the new provisions.

Conclusions:

The court concluded that the jurisdictional assessing officer is empowered to continue with the assessment or reassessment proceedings under the new regime for notices originally issued under the old regime. The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging this authority.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

"We, therefore, hold that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would continue to proceed and have jurisdiction to decide the notices which were originally issued by him."

Core Principles Established:

• The jurisdictional assessing officer retains authority to process notices deemed issued under the new regime by the Supreme Court.
• The procedural requirements of the new regime must be followed by the jurisdictional assessing officer.
• The continuity of the assessment process is essential to reach a logical conclusion.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

• The jurisdictional assessing officer is authorized to continue proceedings and pass assessment orders for notices deemed issued under the new regime.
• The writ petitions challenging this authority are dismissed.
• The petitioners are free to raise objections related to the orders passed by the jurisdictional assessing officer in appeals, and the time limitation for such appeals is extended due to the pendency of the writ petitions.

---