-
by Admin
28 December 2025 10:17 AM
"When Law Commands Faceless Mechanism, Human Discretion Has No Place" – Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a landmark ruling in a batch of more than 200 writ petitions (led by WP No. 14681 of 2023 and connected matters), emphatically holding that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) have no authority to issue reassessment notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the introduction of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme on 29.03.2022.
A Bench comprising Justice Battu Devanand and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma declared all such reassessment proceedings as “without jurisdiction, bad in law, and liable to be quashed”, setting a precedent that significantly impacts the way income tax reassessments are conducted across India.
"No Officer Can Override the Algorithmic Jurisdiction Under Section 151A" – Court Says Discretion Ends Where Faceless Mandate Begins
Rejecting the Revenue's defence that reassessment notices can still be issued by traditional jurisdictional officers, the Court unequivocally held:
“The impugned notices and orders issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or outside the faceless mechanism as provided under Section 144B read with Section 151A and the E-Assessment Scheme, 2022, are bad and illegal.” [Para 7(E)]
Referring to the notification S.O. 1466(E) dated 29.03.2022, the Court clarified that all reassessment actions must be routed through automated allocation to Faceless Assessing Officers (FAOs).
“There is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and FAO… The Scheme dated 29.03.2022 clearly provides that issuance of notice ‘shall be through automated allocation’… which means the same is mandatory and not discretionary.” [Para 7(A), quoting Hexaware Technologies]
“Violation of Faceless Scheme Is Per Se Prejudicial” – No Proof of Harm Needed to Invalidate Such Notices
The Court also dismissed the Revenue’s contention that the petitioners had not suffered actual prejudice, observing:
“An act which is done by an authority contrary to the provisions of the statute itself causes prejudice to the assessee. There is no question of requiring further proof of prejudice.” [Para 7(A)]
This observation draws directly from the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 39689/2025, making the legal position final and binding.
“Reassessment Without Jurisdiction Is Void, Even If Conducted in Good Faith” – Over 200 Income Tax Actions Quashed
Applying the above legal principles, the Court allowed all 200+ writ petitions, holding that:
“The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned orders/notices. Accordingly, notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148, and any consequential proceedings or orders, are hereby set aside.” [Para 8(i)]
The Revenue’s argument that Section 144B of the Act, governing faceless assessment, does not explicitly include Section 148 was also rejected. The Court held that Section 151A governs both issuance of notice under Section 148 and assessment under Section 147, and the Scheme of 2022 must be read holistically.
Faceless Is the Law – Assessments Must Follow Mandated Digital Path
With this judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirms that technology-led tax administration is not optional—it is a mandatory legal structure. Any deviation from the E-Assessment Scheme of 2022, including actions by legacy jurisdictional officers, is not merely irregular—it is void.
“Faceless assessment means faceless from start to finish. Disregarding the algorithmic allocation under Section 151A renders the proceedings non est in the eyes of law.”
Date of Decision: 28 October 2025
