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