Gujarat High Court Holds Post-April 2022 Reopening Notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers Valid

In a significant ruling impacting hundreds of income-tax reassessment cases across the country, the Gujarat High Court on 17 September 2025 upheld the validity of Section 148 reopening notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) after 1 April 2022, rejecting the contention that such notices must mandatorily be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer under the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 (Scheme 2022). The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi delivered a detailed 188-page common judgment while deciding a large group of petitions—over 400 matters were pending on the common jurisdictional issue—arising from challenges to reopening notices issued after the introduction of faceless reassessment reforms. The petitioners argued that once Section 151A and Scheme 2022 came into force, all notices under Section 148 had to be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer, not the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. They heavily relied on the Bombay High Court’s decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., which held that post-1 April 2022, reopening notices issued by the JAO were without jurisdiction. They further contended that Scheme 2022 mandated automated allocation and faceless issuance of Section 148 notices. Allowing JAOs to issue notices undermined the transparency and objectivity of faceless proceedings. Concurrent jurisdiction for both faceless and jurisdictional officers does not exist under the statutory scheme. The department on the other hand, maintained that Scheme 2022 only prescribes automated allocation under the risk-management system, but the actual issuance of notice can lawfully be done by the Jurisdictional Officer. They relied on CBDT’s Office Memorandum dated 20 February 2023 and several High Court rulings supporting their position. The bench conducted a comprehensive analysis of Section 144B (faceless assessment mechanism), Section 148A (procedure preceding reopening), Section 151A (power to introduce faceless schemes), and the Scheme 2022 notification dated 29 March 2022. After a detailed examination, the Court concluded: 1. Scheme 2022 does not mandate faceless issuance of Section 148 notices. The words “and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B” were held to apply only to assessment or reassessment, not to the issuance of reopening notices. 2. Section 144B applies only to assessment proceedings, not to Section 148 notices. The Court observed that Section 144B begins with procedures involving notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2), not Section 148. 3. Applying faceless procedure to Section 148A would rewrite the statutory scheme. The Court disapproved interpretations (including those adopted by the Bombay High Court in later cases) that extended the faceless regime to Section 148A proceedings, observing that such an approach “would amount to altering the Scheme itself.” 4. Automated allocation under Scheme 2022 relates only to risk-based selection, not to which officer signs the notice. The High Court held that automated allocation identifies cases for reopening. It does not eliminate the role or jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional AO. The legislative intent clearly differentiates between automated selection and faceless assessment. While acknowledging conflicting judgments from various High Courts—including those of Bombay, Telangana, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Calcutta—the Gujarat High Court charted its own independent reasoning. The bench noted that their interpretation of Scheme 2022 is “entirely different” from other High Courts. Analysing conflicting judgments was unnecessary given the clarity of the statutory language upon close reading. The Bombay High Court had “misconstrued” the CBDT Office Memorandum on the faceless regime. The Court conclusively held, “The challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer fails.”“Notices issued after 01.04.2022 by Jurisdictional AOs are valid and legal.” The petitions challenging jurisdiction were accordingly dismissed, with merits of each case to be considered separately. Case Details Case Title: Snehdham Trust Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 9909 Of 2022 Date: 17/09/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: S.N.Soparkar, Ld.Sr.Adv Counsel For Respondent: Varun K.Patel Click Here To Read Order Read More: ITAT Quashes Reopening After Finding Assessment Based on ‘Wrong Assumption of Facts’

Gujarat High Court Holds Post-April 2022 Reopening Notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers Valid

Membership Required

Latest articles

Woman’s Family Alleges Murder, Questions Fall Theory After Suspicious Injuries Found on Body

Twisha Sharma’s Death: BCI Suspends Licence of Adv Samarth Singh Amid Probe & Sent To 7 Days Police Custody

Petition in Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Against “Cockroach Janta Party” Over Alleged Fake Law Degrees and Misuse of Court Identity

Even “Loans” Can Be Treated as Deposits Under MPID Act; Failure of IPC Charges Doesn’t Bar Action Under Depositor Protection Law: Supreme court

More like this

Woman’s Family Alleges Murder, Questions Fall Theory After Suspicious Injuries Found on Body

Twisha Sharma’s Death: BCI Suspends Licence of Adv Samarth Singh Amid Probe & Sent To 7 Days Police Custody

Petition in Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Against “Cockroach Janta Party” Over Alleged Fake Law Degrees and Misuse of Court Identity

About us

Company

Categories