Retrospective Insertion Of Section 147A Validates Jurisdiction Of JAO To Initiate And Conduct Reassessment Proceedings

By | August 19, 2026

Retrospective Insertion Of Section 147A Validates Jurisdiction Of JAO To Initiate And Conduct Reassessment Proceedings

Retrospective Insertion Of Section 147A Validates Jurisdiction Of JAO To Initiate And Conduct Reassessment Proceedings

Issue

Whether, in view of the retrospective insertion of Section 147A by the Finance Act, 2026 with effect from April 1, 2021, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had valid jurisdiction to initiate and continue reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A, 148, and 147 for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18 and 2018-19 to 2022-23.

Facts

  • Period of Proceedings: Reassessment proceedings and orders spanned Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18 and 2018-19 to 2022-23.
  • Writ Challenge: Assessees filed writ petitions challenging notices under Sections 148A/148 and reassessment orders passed under Section 147 on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked statutory jurisdiction between April 1, 2021, and April 1, 2024.
  • Legislative Amendment: During the pendency of these writ petitions, Section 147A was inserted into the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 2026, with retrospective operation starting from April 1, 2021.
  • Statutory Effect: Section 147A validated the power and jurisdiction of JAOs to initiate, conduct, and finalize reassessment proceedings for the relevant period.

Decision

  • Validity of JAO Jurisdiction: In favor of Revenue. In light of the retrospective insertion of Section 147A from April 1, 2021, the JAO possessed valid jurisdiction to issue reassessment notices and pass Section 147 orders.
  • Dismissal of Writ Petitions: In favor of Revenue. The writ petitions challenging the initiation, continuation, and completion of reassessment proceedings were dismissed.
  • Interim Protection on Recovery: Recovery proceedings pursuant to the reassessment orders were ordered to remain in abeyance for 30 days from the date of receipt of the order copy, enabling the assessees to approach a Division Bench or challenge the constitutional validity (vires) of Section 147A.

Key Takeaways

  • Curing Jurisdictional Defects Retrospectively: Legislative insertion of validating provisions like Section 147A with retrospective effect cures underlying jurisdictional challenges to notices and orders issued by JAOs.
  • Rejection of Formality Challenges: Reassessment actions taken between April 1, 2021, and April 1, 2024, stand validated under the umbrella of Section 147A, neutralizing jurisdictional objections raised by taxpayers.
  • Temporary Relief for Further Appeal: Dismissal of writ petitions on statutory grounds can be accompanied by a temporary freeze on tax recovery to allow assessees to challenge the validity of the retrospective amendment before higher benches.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Nate Nandha
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
C. Saravanan, J.
W.P.Nos. 11340 & 18084 of 2023 and others
W.M.P.Nos.11235 & 11236 of 2025 and others
APRIL  20, 2026
S. Gautham Venkata Narayanan for the Petitioner. Avinash Krishnan Ravi, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. In all these writ petitions, the respective petitioners have challenged the proceedings either under Section 148A, 148 and / or Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the case may be, as it stood between 01.04.2021 and 01.04.2024.
2. In some of these writ petitions, the imposition of penalty under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has also been challenged together with the above challenges.
3. The challenge to the impugned notices and orders in these writ petitions is tabulated as follows:-
W.P Nos AY Impugned Notice under Section 148A Impugned Order under Section 148A Impugned Notice under Section 148 Impugned Assessment Order under Section 147 and / or Penalty Order
(b) (1) (d) (3)
35141/ 2025 2019- 2020 23.03.2025
34693/ 2025 2021- 2022 28.06.2025 28.06.2025
35106/ 2025 2019- 2020 19.03.2025
34772/ 2025 2019- 2020 30.06.2025 30.06.2025
35137/ 2025 2019- 2020 27.06.2025 28.06.2025
34673/ 2025 2020- 2021 27.06.2025 27.06.2025
34684/ 2025 2019- 2020 13.06.2025 13.06.2025
34526/ 2025 2020- 2021 18.02.2025
35101/ 2025 2017- 2018 18.06.2024
35094/ 2025 2021- 2022 06.06.2024
34854/ 2025 2021- 2022 28.03.2025
35019/ 2025 2020- 2021 30.06.2025 30.06.2025
35095/ 2025 2016- 2017 18.06.2024
35097/ 2025 2018- 2019 18.06.2024
35090/ 2025 2021- 2022 06.06.2024
35105/ 2025 2020- 2021 18.06.2024
35102/ 2025 2019- 2020 18.06.2024
35263/ 2025 2020- 2021 24.01.2025
35128/ 2025 2021- 2022 17.05.2024
35134/ 2025 2022- 2023 17.05.2024
35139/ 2025 2014- 2015 18.06.2024
35142/ 2025 2015- 2016 18.06.2024
34687/ 2025 2020- 2021 13.06.2025 13.06.2025
35091/ 2025 2021- 2022 06.06.2024
35564/ 2025 2020- 2021 28.02.2025
35082/ 2025 2021- 2022 21.08.2024
35087/ 2025 2022- 2023 21.08.2024
26083/ 2025 2020- 2021 29.01.2025
26087/ 2025 2021- 2022 06.06.2025 06.06.2025
11340/ 2023 2019- 2020 30.03.2023 01.04.2023
31869/ 2025 2020- 2021 18.02.2025
31339/ 2025 2014- 2015 24.05.2023
29921/ 2025 2016- 2017 02.03.2024
29899/ 2025 2016- 2017 08.05.2023
27625/ 2025 2020- 2021 14.02.2025
25882/ 2025 2020- 2021 27.03.2024 07.03.2025
46036/ 2025 2020- 2021 23.09.2025
25007/ 2025 2021- 2022 30.03.2025
23025/ 2025 2021- 2022 30.03.2025
23516/ 2025 2021- 2022 28.03.2025
34708/ 2024 2015- 2016 25.04.2022 26.12.2023
18036/ 2024 2019- 2020 16.03.2023 16.03.2023 28.12.2023
16289/ 2024 2020- 2021 30.03.2024 30.03.2024
15808/ 2024 2018- 2019 28.03.2024 28.03.2024
4641/2 024 2017- 2018 16.05.2023
26691/ 2023 2018- 2019 20.03.2023
18084/ 2023 2016- 2017 28.03.2023 28.03.2023

 

4. In all these cases, the respective petitioners have secured an interim order only on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenges are primarily based on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 464 ITR 430 (Bombay).
5. When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), had been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the behest of the Income Tax Department. During the interregnum, Section 147A was inserted by the Finance Act, 2026, which came into force on 01.04.2026 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021.
6. This Court has already examined the issue independently and had come to the conclusion in Ontivillu Gopidoss Jothilakshmi v. ITO [W.P.(MD) No.13626 of 2024, dated 24.01.2025] holding that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had jurisdiction. There also, the challenge to the proceedings was made based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra).
7. After Section 147A was inserted by the Finance Act, 2026, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rendered a decision in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh  (SC)/[Diary No.2196/2026, dated 10.04.2026]. On the date when the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed this order, the printed copy of this order was not available. Subsequently, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was made available. Relevant portions of the said order are extracted below:
“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 assessees are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are accordingly remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. Ordered accordingly.
23. The assessees are granted liberty to amend their writ petitions, if so advised, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of uploading of this order, so as to enable them to lay challenge to Section 147A of the IT Act, as introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, or to any other connected or consequential provision.
24. Similarly, the Appellant-Revenue shall be at liberty to file their written submissions and affidavits before the jurisdictional High Courts within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.
25. No additional time shall be granted to the parties beyond what has been granted above.
26. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions, and all such questions are left open to be decided by the High Courts.
27. Finally, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Courts, there shall be an interim stay of further assessment/reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the High Courts.
28. The High Courts are requested to decide the matters preferably by 30.09.2026. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to extend full cooperation to the High Courts in this regard. No adjournments may be granted by the High Courts on mere asking of the parties.
29. The Registry shall forthwith transmit a copy of this order to the Registrars General of the concerned High Courts.
30. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
31. All pending applications, including intervention application(s), shall also stand disposed of.”
8. It is evident that the Judgments of the High Courts, which were in favour of the assessees, were set aside, and cases were remitted back for fresh consideration.
9. Since the assessees have a right to challenge the vires of the insertion of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide the Finance Act, 2026, dated 01.04.2026, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given liberty to the assessee to challenge the amendments.
10. As far as the system that is followed by this Court, insofar as the challenge to the vires of the provisions are concerned, Rule 17(1)(iii) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules,2021, governs it. As per the said Rule, a challenge can be made, in these circumstances, only before the Division Bench.
11. On merits, the issue is squarely covered against the petitioner in Ontivillu Gopidoss Jothilakshmi (supra) which position also now stands clarified by the Parliament with the insertion of Section 147A, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021. I am therefore inclined to dismiss these writ petitions. However, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for the respective petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the Division Bench either against the orders passed herein or to stay the operation of Section 147A, by challenging the same, as ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tej Partap Singh (supra).
12. With the above observations, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.