Supreme Court Remits Section 148 Reassessment Jurisdiction Disputes to High Courts Following Governing Precedents

By | August 1, 2026
0 Comment

Supreme Court Remits Section 148 Reassessment Jurisdiction Disputes to High Courts Following Governing

Supreme Court Remits Section 148 Reassessment Jurisdiction Disputes to High Courts Following Governing Precedents Precedents

Issue

Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) rather than the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) under Section 151A are valid, and how pending High Court orders quashing such notices should be resolved in light of recent Supreme Court precedents.

Facts

  • For Assessment Year 2021–22, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issued a notice dated June 28, 2025, under Section 148 to the assessee.

  • The assessee challenged the notice before the High Court, contending that under the CBDT Notification dated March 29, 2022 (read with Section 151A), exclusive jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices was vested in the NFAC under the faceless scheme.

  • The High Court held that the notice issued by the JAO was without jurisdiction and quashed the notice along with all consequential reassessment proceedings.

  • The Revenue appealed against the High Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

  • During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the core jurisdictional issue was squarely covered by its binding precedents in Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh (SC) and Income-tax Officer v. Sai Kumar Mateti   (SC).

Decision

  • The Supreme Court disposed of the Revenue’s appeals in accordance with the terms laid down in Tej Partap Singh and Sai Kumar Mateti.

  • The matters were remitted back to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration in light of the governing Supreme Court rulings.

  • The decision was rendered partly in favour of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

  • Supreme Court Precedent Governs: Challenges regarding the jurisdiction of JAOs versus NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices under Section 151A are governed by the Supreme Court rulings in Tej Partap Singh and Sai Kumar Mateti.

  • Remand for Re-evaluation: High Court decisions quashing Section 148 notices on jurisdictional grounds alone are subject to fresh consideration by High Courts in alignment with the authoritative SC framework.

  • Procedural Standardization: Remitting these matters ensures uniform application of the law across all pending reassessment jurisdiction disputes.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
v.
Rudra Alloys (P.) Ltd.
Surya Kant, CJI
and V. Mohana, J.
Civil Appeal No. 8642 of 2026†
JUNE  19, 2026
S. Dwarakanath, ASG, Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Sidharth Yadav, Jagdish Chandra, Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Gaurav Arya, Arun Kumar Singh and Amit Sharma V., Advs. for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly states that the issues involved in this batch of matters is squarely covered by our order dated 10.04.2026 passed in ITO v. Tej Partap Singh (SC)/C.A. No.4716/2026 and connected matters, read with order dated 04.05.2026 passed in ITO v. Sai Kumar Mateti  (SC)/C.A. No.6922/2026 and connected matters.
4. The appeals are, thus, disposed of in the same terms. The matters are remitted to the jurisdictional High Courts to be decided in light of the above-cited order(s) of this Court.
5. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.