Jurisdictional officers are permitted to issue reassessment notices under the amended Income Tax Act, and delays in pursuing legal remedies can impact appeals.

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , on 07.04.2022 and the consequential assessment order dated 08.02.2024 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the .

2. It is noticed that pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148A(b)

of the Income Tax Act on 24.03.2022, an order came to be passed on 07.04.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act, in view of the amendments to the statutory mechanism for reopening the assessments, with effect from 01.04.2024 vide amendment to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Finance Act, 2021. Subsequently, the impugned notice was issued on

07.04.2022 and consequential assessment order on 08.02.2024.

3. The petitioner was also issued a notice on 08.02.2024 under Section

270A read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , for penalty and the said proceedings are said to be pending. The petitioner was served with a recovery notice on 13.02.2025. It is in this background, the petitioner has now approached this Court belatedly by filing this writ petition on 21.07.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a dispute in view of the conflicting views of the two learned Single Judges of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court has recently held that the proceedings under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act, can be issued only by the faceless authority and not by the jurisdictional assessing authority, in the light of the changes brought to the provisions of the Income Tax Act with effect from 01.04.2021.

5. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2024) 162 taxmann.com 2025 , held that such proceedings were without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court recently by its order dated 24.06.2025 in W.P.No.35385 of 2024 has ordered as under:

“9. Keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, including liberty to apply to this Court, in case the Revenue succeeds before the Apex Court, for revival of this petition, the notice issued in this petition is quashed and set aside.

10. In this petition, apart from the issue of notice issued by JAO instead of FAO, all or many of the issues which were considered in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) are involved.

11. To the extent the issues raised in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) are not covered, those are kept open to be raised at the appropriate stage.

12. With the liberty as noted above, this petition stand disposed of holding in favour of assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the interim applications also stand disposed of.”

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents referred to Section

124(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and submits that the petitioner is not entitled to question the jurisdiction after the assessment order was passed on

08.02.2024. That apart, it is submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of the laches, as a considerable time has lapsed since the assessment order was passed on 08.02.2024.

7. It is submitted that the although the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act was issued by the jurisdictional assessing Officer on 24.03.2022 and further orders was passed under A(d) on 07.04.2022 by the jurisdictional assessing officer, the impugned assessment order was passed pursuant to the notice under of the Act on 08.02.2024.

8. In this connection, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to the decision of this Court in W.P(MD)No.13626 of 2024 in the case of Ontivillu Gopidoss Jothilakshmi Vs. The Income Tax Officer and others, wherein, Paragraph No.80, this Court discussed the entire scheme of the reassessment proceedings in the light of the