Challenge to notices under s.148A(b) and s.148 dismissed; reassessment must be faceless per CBDT notification 29.03.2022

HC dismissed the challenge to notices under s.148A(b) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act, holding that reassessment proceedings must be conducted faceless pursuant to the CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022 and that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked competence to initiate such proceedings. The court found the issue covered by its prior decision and refused relief, while noting the petitioner's reservation of rights to press the same contentions before the tax authorities.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is competent to initiate reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 (and section 148A stages) of the Income Tax Act after issuance of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless reassessment proceedings, or whether such power vests with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

2. Whether writ relief is maintainable to quash notices/initiations of reassessment issued by a JAO where earlier Division Bench precedents of this Court have addressed the competence of JAO versus FAO in the context of the CBDT Notification and faceless regime.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Competence to initiate reassessment proceedings (JAO v. FAO)

Legal framework: The reassessment provisions under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act operate subject to statutory and administrative rules governing who may initiate such proceedings. The CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 prescribes that reassessment proceedings shall be conducted in a faceless manner, thereby creating the administrative architecture for FAOs to conduct reassessment functions.

Precedent treatment: This Court has considered the question in prior Division Bench rulings which interpreted the effect of the CBDT Notification on the competence of the JAO to initiate reassessment proceedings. The present Court follows those precedents and treats them as binding on the instant matter.

Interpretation and reasoning: Pursuant to the Notification requiring faceless conduct of reassessment, the administrative scheme displaces initiation by the local/Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in favour of the Faceless Assessing Officer who is mandated to conduct reassessment under the faceless framework. Where earlier Division Bench decisions have held that the JAO lacks competence to initiate reassessment after the Notification, the same legal position governs identical challenges in the present petition. The Court therefore applies the established interpretation that initiation/issuance of notices under Section 148 (and related preliminary steps under Section 148A) must conform to the faceless scheme and cannot be validly undertaken by the JAO acting outside that scheme.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that the JAO is not competent to initiate reassessment in light of the 29.03.2022 Notification is treated as ratio decidendi in the prior Division Bench rulings and is followed here as the binding ratio applicable to the present challenge. Any ancillary observations in earlier orders not essential to that core holding are treated as obiter and are not relied upon beyond their persuasive value.

Conclusion: The Court dismisses the challenge to the impugned notices and proceedings on the ground that the legal position is settled against the petitioner by binding Division Bench authority; accordingly, reassessment initiation by a JAO inconsistent with the faceless regime is not sustainable and the petition seeking to quash such initiation is dismissed in light of controlling precedent.

Issue 2 - Availability of writ relief and scope of relief where precedent governs

Legal framework: Writ jurisdiction permits quashing of administrative action where it is illegal or without jurisdiction; however, where binding precedent of a Division Bench has settled the legal question, subsequent petitions raising the same issue may be dismissed as governed by that precedent.

Precedent treatment: The Court follows earlier decisions of this Court which have dismissed writ petitions challenging initiation of reassessment by JAOs after the faceless-notification regime was put in place. Those prior Division Bench rulings have been applied consistently in later matters.

Interpretation and reasoning: In applying binding precedent, the Court adjudicates that the present petition raises no new or distinguishable question of law that would warrant departure from prior rulings. The petitioner was allowed to reserve other contentions to be urged before the appropriate income-tax authorities, but no interference is warranted by the writ court on the settled point regarding competence to initiate reassessment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of being governed by binding precedent is ratio in the present judgment. Observations preserving parties' rights to raise distinct issues before the assessing authorities are incidental and operate as procedural clarification (obiter to the extent they do not affect the central jurisdictional holding).

Conclusion: Writ relief to quash notices/initiations is not granted where Division Bench precedent of this Court squarely addresses and resolves the competence issue; the petition is dismissed and interim or ancillary applications become infructuous.

Cross-references and consequential directions

Where the petition raises identical points already decided by binding Division Bench authority interpreting the effect of the CBDT faceless-reassessment Notification, the Court applies that precedent and dismisses the petition, while expressly leaving open the parties' rights to urge other issues before the concerned income-tax authorities. Applications rendered academic by such dismissal are dismissed as infructuous.

---