THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 AND 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

These are batch of writ petitions involving the same issue.

Therefore, they are clubbed together and are being decided by this common order.

2. Heard Mr. A. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor of India. Ms. Rutuja Pawar, learned counsel, along with Mr. Dundu Sashank Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667 of 2024; Mr. A.V. Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.28497 and 26788 of 2024; Mr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12437 of 2025; Mr. Govinda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9561 of 2025, Mr. K.S.S.K.V. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms. Mytri Indukuru, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos.14549, 14664 and 14674 of 2025 and Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel, representing Mr. S.K. Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.12873 of 2025. Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department for the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024, 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664 & 14674 of 2025; and Ms. J.Sunitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.12773 & 12437 of 2025.

3. The primary challenge in all these writ petitions is to the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short ‘JAO’) in each of the writ petitions. The challenge is firstly, the JAO not having jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices and the notices ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (for short ‘FAO’) and, secondly, the impugned notices being in contravention to the explanation to Section 151A of the Act and also in violation of the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 read with the notification of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, the ‘CBDT’) dated 29.03.2022.

4. The notices in this batch of writ petitions were in relation to cases assigned to “central charges”.

5. The question for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is “whether in cases assigned to “central charges” the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act could have been issued by JAO or it ought to have been as per the amendment carried out w.e.f.

01.04.2021 in a faceless manner?”

6. So far as, whether a notice under Section 148 of the Act on or after 01.04.2021 has to be issued mandatorily by the FAO is not contended or disputed by either of the parties, as the said aspect stands decided in a large number of writ petitions by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. The Income Tax Officer¹ The said view was also followed by many other High Courts and the issue arising out of all the High Courts is seized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a large number of S.L.Ps. preferred by the Income Tax Department.

1 Writ Petition No.25903 of 2022 & Batch, decided on 14.09.2023

7. All the learned counsel for the petitioners primarily relied upon the aforesaid judgment of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) and which was subsequently also made applicable in the case of “international charges” by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad and Others², wherein again the core question raised for adjudication was whether the show-cause notices under Section 148 of the Act in matters relating to “international charges” would stand exempted or excluded from the faceless procedure and has to be quashed only on that ground.

8. Apart from the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for