TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO, J. (ORAL) 1. The captioned petitions have been filed impugning notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the respondent who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The contentions of the petitioner is that the said notices and all subsequent proceedings emanating there from are wholly without jurisdiction void ab intio and in contravention to the statutory scheme under Section 151A of the Act read with "E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" (the Scheme). 2. As the present petitions agitate a common issue, i.e., whether the JAO would have the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, we may proceed to decide them together. 3. The contention of Mr. Kumail Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioners is that on 31.03.2023, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2022 (TOLA) inserted Section 151A into the Act, mandating that all notices under Section 148 of the Act must be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) alone. In furtherance, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide notification S.O.1466(E) dated 29.03.2022 introduced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Writ Petition No. 26645/2024 & connected matters has also held that where the assessment is centralized, the mandate of Section 144B read with Section 151A would apply in full rigour. Further, even the High Court of Bombay in Ganesh Nivrutti Jagtap v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai & Ors., Writ Petition (L) No. 18265/2024 decided on 02.09.2024 has unequivocally held that the central circle charges are not carved out as an exception to the faceless regime, and are equally bound by the express mandate of Section 144B read with Section 151A of the Act. The Court categorically rejected the contention that the centralisation of a case provides any leeway to bypass the statutory framework, reiterating that all the assessments and reassessments under Section 147 of the Act must proceed strictly in accordance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme as notified by the CBDT. Even the Rajasthan High Court in Rajesh Todwal s/o Prem Chand Todwal v. Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan, Income Tax and Ors., 2025:RJ-JP:35259-DB has likewise held that the central circle charges cannot be an exception to the faceless regime. 8. The submission of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment. 14. He has endeavoured to controvert the reliance placed by Mr. Abbas on the order of the Supreme Court in Deepanjan Roy (supra) by stating that the dismissal of the SLP therein is a dismissal in limine, as it does not state any reasons for the dismissal. The same cannot be said to have settled the law, more so when the SLPs against the judgments in TKS Builders (supra) and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) are still pending adjudication. 15. He stated that since there has been no stay of the judgments of this Court, there is no reason to part with the view which has been consistently taken. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the submission of Mr. Abbas cannot be accepted for the reason that this Court has settled the law relating to the issue in TKS Builders (supra), which though under challenge before the Supreme Court, has not been stayed. 17. This Court has maintained a consistent position, that both JAO and FAO possess co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejecting the special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent." (Emphasis supplied) 21. In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 270, wherein it was observed as under:- "9.27. It is a well-settled principle of law emerging from a catena of decisions of this Court, including Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. V. Union of India [Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. V. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187, paras 22 and 23 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 569] and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, paras 112 and 113 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1034 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 496 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 208], that the dismissal of an SLP in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a bindi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subject-matter of petition for special leave to review its own order if grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction are shown to exist. Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is, where reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the petition for special leave and are stated in the order still the order remains the one rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Here also the doctrine of merger would not apply. But the law stated or declared by this Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution. The reasons assigned by this Court in its order expressing its adjudication (expressly or by necessary implication) on point of fact or law shall take away the jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal or authority to express any opinion in conflict with or in departure from the view taken by this Court because permitting to do so would be subversive of judicial discipline and an affront to the order of this Court. However this would be so not by reference to the doctrine of merger.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modif....