ORDER
1. Ms. Akruti Agarwal, Mr. M.Shriraj, learned counsel representing M/s. R.S.Associates, Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S., Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, Mr. Chanda Sumanth, Mr. P.Soma Shekar Reddy, Mr. C.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, Mr. B. Krishna Reddy, Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, Mr. V.Aneesh, Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, Mr. Sashank Dundu, learned counsel representing Mr. Dundu Manmohan, Mr. Parikshith Kutur, Mr. S.Vijay Adithya, Mr. Pramod Maligi, Mr. B.Muralidar, learned counsel representing Mr. V.V.S.Ankith, Mr. M.Pranay Sagar, Mr. M.Mehdi Hussain, Ms. Sneha Asthana, Mr. Gopala Rao Amancharla V., Mr. Akshay Mantri, Mr. Chokkapu Neela Achyuth, Mr. Appasani Ram Dheeraj and Ms. P.Praneeta Sri, learned counsel representing Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Ms. J.Sunitha, Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, Mr. Vijhay K Punna, Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Income Tax Department.
Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for Union of India.
2. In all these writ petitions the challenge is to the initiation of proceedings under Sections 148(A) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).
3. Petitioners though have taken other pleas in most of these writ petitions, but they submit that the issues involved in the present batch of writ petitions have been considered and settled by the judgment rendered by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 vide order dated 28.04.2025 following the decision rendered in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (TELANGANA). It is submitted that the present writ petitions may be disposed of on same lines after setting aside the impugned proceedings under Sections 148(A) and 148 of the Act and on similar terms as are set out in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) and also in W.P.No.26304 of 2024, dated 28.04.2025.
4. In support of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they relied on the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Bombay), Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. ITO(Bombay), Bank of India v. Asstt. CIT (Bombay); judgment of Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah v. Union of India (Gauhati), judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India (Punjab & Haryana), judgments of Telangana High Court in Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola v. Dy. CIT (Telangana), Shaik Sajid v. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [W.P. No. 26885 of 2024], Kings Pride Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Telangana), Satyaprakash Chigurupati v. Asstt. CIT [W.P. No.21063 of 2025] & batch and Deloittee Consulting India (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi (Telangana), judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Govind Singh v. ITO (Himachal Pradesh), judgment of Gujarat High Court in Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya v. ITO (2024) SCC OnLine Guj 4012, judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Shyam Sunder Saw v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 287, judgment of Calcutta High Court in Giridhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India [ MAT No.1690 of 2023 (DB)], judgments of Madras High Court in TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Madras) and Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [W.A.No.781 of 2021], judgments of Rajasthan High Court in Sharda Devi Chhajer v. ITO 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 and Shree Cement Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (Rajasthan), and judgment of Karnataka High Court in Ramachandra Reddy Ravi Kumar v. Dy. CIT (Karnataka).
5. These matters have been clubbed together for the reason that all of them assail the proceedings initiated under Section 148(A) followed by notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment by the JAO. The dates of the impugned notices and proceedings have been referred to in the individual writ petitions, which are post 29.03.2022 i.e., the date on which the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 151A of the Act has made the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2002 vide Notification No.18 of 2022.
6. The respondent Department was asked to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit, if necessary, on facts and legal issues raised herein.
7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Department has obtained instructions in all these matters. Based upon the instructions received from the Department, learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the initiation of impugned proceedings under Section 148(A) of the Act has been done by the JAO after coming into force of the faceless scheme with effect from 29.03.2022.
8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents have also not been able to dispute that the legal issue as regards the jurisdiction of the JAO to initiate proceedings instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have been well settled by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 followed in several other judgments.
9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents also do not dispute that a number of other jurisdictional High Courts have also taken the same view. However, they submit that a contrary view has been taken in the following decisions as well. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Caishen Enterprise LLP v. Asstt. Commissioner (Bombay), judgments of Madras High Court in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (Madras) and Perur Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO (Madras), judgment of Gujarat High Court in Talati and Talati LLP v. Asstt. CIT (Gujarat) and judgment of Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. , v. Income Tax Officer (Delhi)/[2024] 469 ITR 657 (Delhi).
10. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submit that SLP(C).No.027736 of 2023 and batch challenging the orders passed by this Court and other jurisdictional High Courts are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no stay of the impugned judgments has been granted in favour of the revenue.
11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the relevant factual assertion made by the petitioners that the impugned proceedings have been initiated by the JAO after coming into force of the Faceless Scheme with effect from 29.03.2022. The relevant details concerning individual petitioners are appended to this order and shall be treated as part of the order. They indicate the relevant assessment year, the date of notice issued under Section 148A of the Act, the date of the order under Section 148 of the Act, the date of sanction under Section 151 of the Act, intimation to proceed with assessment under Section 144B of the Act in some cases, the date of assessment order in some of the cases as against the individual writ petitions referred to in Column No.1.
12. From a perusal of the tabulation chart it is apparent that the impugned proceedings in all these cases have been initiated by JAO after coming into force of the Faceless Scheme with effect from 29.03.2022.
13. The legal issue as regards the lack of jurisdiction on the part of JAO to initiate the proceedings post implementation of the Faceless Scheme is no longer res integra as it has been held in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) and by other jurisdictional High Courts.
14. As a matter of fact, several orders following the ratio rendered in the above cases have been passed one after the other. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present batch of writ petitions also stand covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra). The relevant extract of the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 is reproduced hereunder:
“15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation / direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer (TELANGANA)] shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:
36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Sections 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.
37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.
38. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, [Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)], as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.
18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue.
19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside / quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order as to costs.”
15. The impugned proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 of the Act assailed in these writ petitions are set aside. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside on similar terms as held in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra). The revenue is also granted liberty in the same terms as at para 18 of the above quoted orders.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.