High Court Upholds Jurisdiction of JAO in Reassessment; Petitioner’s Challenge Under Faceless Regime Fails:

High Court upholds validity of Section 148 notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers post-2022 and rejects challenge based on faceless assessment rules.
HC Upholds Validity of Section 148 Notices Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers

High Court Upholds Jurisdiction of JAO in Reassessment; Petitioner’s Challenge Under Faceless Regime Fails
The petitioner, Tomy Joseph, challenged reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act. The core grievance was that the notice and order under Section 148A(b) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), despite the introduction of the Faceless Assessment regime. The petitioner argued that the statutory scheme under Sections 148 and 148A, read with the Notification dated 29.03.2022, required reassessment functions to be executed only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). It was further contended that the reopening was based solely on an audit objection, without any new tangible material, and therefore amounted to a mere change of opinion. The petitioner also claimed that the orders passed under Section 148A(b) were mechanical and non-speaking.
Main Issue: Whether reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (instead of the Faceless Assessing Unit) after 01.04.2022 are legally valid, and whether the challenge based on alleged lack of tangible material and non-speaking orders warranted interference.
HC's Decision: The High Court rejected the petition. It held that the Division Bench judgment dated 17.09.2025 had already settled the jurisdictional issue, confirming that notices issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of the faceless regime are valid and lawful. The Court declined to take a divergent view.
The Bench examined the Section 148A(b) order and found that the Assessing Officer had addressed the relevant issues, specifically the use of the petitioner’s properties as noted in paragraphs 7.2 to 8.3 of the impugned order. As an alternative remedy remained available before the Assessing Officer, no case was made out for quashing the proceedings. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157My Recent Articles
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
- Bombay High Court Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16Premium
- ITAT Deletes Demonetisation Addition Accepting Deceased Father’s Lifetime Cash SavingsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








