Delhi High Court Upholds Concurrent Jurisdiction in Income Tax Reassessment Notices

In a significant ruling that deepens the divide between various High Courts regarding the "Faceless Assessment" regime, the Delhi High Court has once again reiterated its stance on the jurisdictional powers of tax authorities. On November 21, 2025, a division bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed a series of writ petitions that sought to invalidate notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

The Core Dispute: Who Holds the Power?

The petitioners challenged notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), arguing that following the insertion of Section 151A and the implementation of the "E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022," the power to issue reassessment notices rested exclusively with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). They contended that the JAO had been entirely divested of this authority.

The petitioners drew support from a string of judgments from the Bombay, Telangana, and Punjab & Haryana High Courts , which have largely sided with the view that only the FAO holds the mandated authority to initiate reopening of assessments.

Arguments: Statutory Compliance vs. Judicial Consistency

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kumail Abbas, argued that the statutory scheme is clear: the law mandates a faceless process. He further asserted that the Supreme Court ’s recent dismissal of the Revenue 's Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT lent definitive weight to the interpretation that the JAO lacks the jurisdiction.

Conversely, the Revenue maintained that the Delhi High Court has established a consistent legal position—affirming that both the JAO and the FAO operate with concurrent jurisdiction. Mr. Anurag Ojha, appearing for the Revenue , argued that until a higher court explicitly settles the issue in a speaking order, the Delhi High Court is bound by its own precedent established in TKS Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer .

The Court’s Reasoning: The Binding Power of Precedent

The High Court remained unmoved by the petitioners' contentions, emphasizing that it is bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline. The bench clarified that it has consistently held that the JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 148.

The Court addressed the petitioners' reliance on the Supreme Court 's dismissal of SLPs from other High Courts , citing the principle that a dismissal in limine (without detailed reasons) does not constitute a binding precedent or declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution . Therefore, the judgment in TKS Builders remains good law within the jurisdiction of Delhi.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a firm defense of its established stance, utilizing the following observations:

> "This Court has maintained a consistent position, that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act."

> "The Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP, had only stated that it does not find any merit in the SLP, without giving any detailed reasons... [it] does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent."

> "As such, the judgment in TKS Builders (supra) would still hold the fort insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned. We are bound by the same."

Practical Implications

The dismissal of these petitions reaffirms that taxpayers in Delhi will continue to face reassessment notices from their Jurisdictional Assessing Officers. While various other High Courts have adopted a more restrictive view favoring the "Faceless" exclusivity, the Delhi High Court ’s refusal to deviate ensures that, for now, the status quo remains unchanged.

As the issue remains pending before the Supreme Court in multiple appeals, tax professionals and taxpayers alike remain in a state of watchful waiting, with the final word on the statutory architecture of the faceless regime yet to be definitively spoken by the Apex Court.