Telangana High Court

Kings Pride Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incometax on 14 July, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

         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 Officer 1.

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.

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

Others 2, 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 the

petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court

dealing with similar circumstances in the case of Hexaware

Technologies Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

and Others 3 . However, in all these writ petitions, the counsel

representing the Income Tax Department vehemently contended that

Writ Petition No.13353 of 2024 & Batch, decided on 24.07.2024

(2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)

these cases since assigned to "central charges", there is slight

difference on facts and law so far as the applicability of Kankanala

Ravindra Reddy (supra) at the first instance, and Sri

Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra) in the second instance, and

they wanted to distinguish and contend that this batch of writ petitions

would be an exclusion or an exception so far as the proceedings to be

drawn in a faceless manner is concerned.

9. Mr. A. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General

of India led the arguments on behalf of the Income Tax Department in

all these writ petitions.

10. It was the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General

that in all the writ petitions before this Court where the cases pertain

to central charges has arisen from the search and seizure proceedings

initiated by the Income Tax Department. It was also the contention

that the proceedings initiated or arising out of a search and seizure

cannot be equated with the normal assessment proceedings drawn

under the statute. It was also the contention that a faceless proceeding

is to be adopted in case of a normal regular assessment proceeding and

not where the proceedings have been drawn subsequent to search and

seizure. It was also contended that unless the notices in these cases are

not issued by the JAO, the Department would find it extremely

difficult in adhering to the requirement of law under Section 153D of

the Act.

11. Reading through the provisions of Section 153D of the Act, the

learned Additional Solicitor General contended that in order to ensure

compliance as is required therein, it would become necessary for the

proceedings to be initiated at the first instance by the JAO and, it was

in this context, that these notices have been issued and the same

therefore cannot be found fault with and the petitioners do not have

any claim and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

12. It was the further contention of the learned Additional Solicitor

General that recently the Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and

Talati LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 4 held that

notice under Section 148 of the Act in a faceless manner as per the

scheme framed by notification dated 28.03.2022 cannot be applied to

cases of search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act and, in such

circumstances, it would be the JAO who is required to record his

(2024) 167 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat)

satisfaction on the basis of the material collected during the course of

the search.

13. Learned Additional Solicitor General also referred to a recent

decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders (P.)

Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer5, wherein reiterating the view expressed

by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Talati and Talati LLP

(supra), the Delhi High Court had dismissed the batch of writ

petitions.

14. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General for

evaluation of data, there is a mandatory requirement of JAO and when

it is a case arising out of search and seizure, keeping in view the

provisions of Section 153D of the Act, the safest inference that can be

drawn is that there is a concurrent jurisdiction available on the JAO as

also the FAO and for evaluation of the data also the services of JAO

would be required. It was also contended by the learned Additional

Solicitor General that the provisions of the Act have to be

implemented keeping in consideration the harmonious construction

2024 SCC OnLine Del 7508

and that the provisions of the statute has to be applied by giving a

beneficial construction.

15. It was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General

that clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 144B of the Act requires

that the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the selected

cases for the purpose of faceless assessment through automated

allocation system. Clause (i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 144B of the

Act for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:

"(i) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected for the purposes of faceless assessment under this section to a specific assessment unit through an automated allocation system."

16. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor

General that in cases of "central charges", there is no requirement to

conduct proceedings under Section 148A of the Act and hence the

notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in case of "central

charges" cannot be issued on automated allocation system.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, particularly

the learned Additional Solicitor General extensively, it would be

necessary at this juncture to take note of the decision rendered in the

case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) wherein the Division

Bench of this High Court in a batch of writ petitions, has held in

paragraph Nos.35 to 38 as under:

"35. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is by now very clear that the procedure to be followed by the respondent- Department upon treating the notices issued for reassessment being under Section 148A, the subsequent proceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the substituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In the absence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted by the respondent-Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the Finance Act, 2021, at the first instance. Secondly, it is also in direct contravention to the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.

36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notices issued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent- Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable. The notices so issued and the procedure adopted being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed.

37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal (1 supra) as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (1 supra)."

18. From the aforesaid judgment and the principles of which have

been reiterated in a large number of writ petitions subsequently filed,

it would be evidently clear that the view of this High Court and the

ratio laid down was that on and after coming into force of the Finance

Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, and with the introduction of the

amendment to Section 148 of the Act wherein it was envisaged that

the assessments have to be done by way of an automated faceless

mechanism, all proceedings of assessment drawn subsequently have to

be by following the same mechanism. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish

Agarwal6, in very categorical terms has held as under:

"Thus, the new provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 being remedial and benevolent in nature and substituted with a

2022 SCC OnLine SC 543

specific aim and object to protect the rights and interest of the assessee as well as and the same being in public interest, the respective High Courts have rightly held that the benefit of new provisions shall be made available even in respect of the proceedings relating to past assessment years, provided section 148 notice has been issued on or after April 1, 2021. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the various High Courts in holding so.

However, at the same time, the judgments of the several High Courts would result in no reassessment proceedings at all, even if the same are permissible under the Finance Act, 2021 and as per substituted sections 147.

The Revenue cannot be made remediless and the object and purpose of reassessment proceedings cannot be frustrated. It is true that due to a bona fide mistake and in view of subsequent extension of time vide various notifications, the Revenue issued the impugned notices under section 148 after the amendment was enforced with effect from April 1, 2021, under the unamended section 148. In our view the same ought not to have been issued under the unamended Act and ought to have been issued under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax Act as per the Finance Act, 2021. There appears to be genuine non-application of the amendments as the officers of the Revenue may have been under a bona fide belief that the amendments may not yet have been enforced. Therefore, we are of the opinion that some leeway must be shown in that regard which the High Courts could have done so. Therefore, instead of quashing and setting aside the reassessment notices issued under the unamended provisions

of the Income-tax Act as those deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as per the new provisions of section 148A and the Revenue ought to have been permitted to proceed further with the reassessment proceedings as per the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax Act as per the Finance Act, 2021, subject to compliance of all the procedural requirements and the defences, which may be available to the assessee under the substituted provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax Act and which may be available under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law. Therefore, we propose to modify the judgments and orders passed by the respective High Courts as under:

(i) The respective impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The respective Assessing Officers shall within thirty days from today provide to the asseessees the information and material relied upon by the Revenue so that the asseessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter;

(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A9(a) be dispensed with as a onetime measure vis-à-

vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from April 1,

(iii) The Assessing Officers shall thereafter pass an order in terms of section 148A(d) after following the due

procedure as required under section 148A(b) in respect of each of the concerned assessees" ;"

19. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), it has been emphatically held by the

Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Ravindra Reddy

(supra) that there is no further dispute to be adjudicated so far as what

is the mechanism which has to be applied for assessment / re-

assessment even if it is for assessment of previous years if the

proceedings have been initiated on or after 01.04.2021. It has to be

only through automated faceless mechanism and no other way.

19.1. Hence, the question of law as framed in the earlier paragraph of

this order is "whether in the case of central charges, could the

aforementioned principles of law be deviated and whether the

proceedings drawn under the central charges could be by the JAO or it

too has to be in a faceless manner?"

20. The CBDT in respect of the same had issued a notification

dated 29.03.2022 in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (1) and

(2) of Section 151A of the Act and, framed a scheme, which for ready

reference is reproduced hereunder:

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 29th March, 2022

S.O. 1466(E):-- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme, namely:-

1. Short title and commencement:-- (1) This Scheme may be called the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022.

(2) It shall come into force with effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Definitions:-- (1) In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires, --

(a) "Act" means the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961);

(b) "automated allocation" means an algorithm for randomised allocation of cases, by using suitable technological tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, with a view to optimise the use of resources.

(2) Words and expressions used herein and not defined, but defined in the Act, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Act.

3. Scope of the Scheme:-- For the purpose of this Scheme,--

(a) assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 of the Act,

(b) issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Board as referred to in section 148 of the Act for issuance of notice, and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee.

(Emphasis supplied)

21. Similarly, the CBDT earlier also vide order dated 06.09.2021, in

exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act introduced certain

exceptions / exclusions to Section 144B of the Act. The said order

dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder:

Section 144B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

144B. Faceless Assessment:

(1)...

(2) The faceless assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons, or incomes or class of incomes, or cases or class of cases, as may be specified by the Board.

(Emphasis Supplied) CBDT's Order dated 06.09.2021:

F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-I Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes) ***** North Block, New Delhi Dated, the 6th September, 2021.

ORDER

Subject:- Order under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) providing exclusions to section 144B of the Act.

The Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 (the Scheme) has been incorporated in the Act vide the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 144B of the Act pertaining to Faceless Assessment has been inserted by the said amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2021.

2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Order F.No.187/3/2020-

ITA-I dated 13th August, 2020 (the Order) read with order under

section 119 of the Act regarding mutatis mutandis application of Orders, Circulars etc., issued in order to implement the Scheme to Faceless Assessment u/s 144B of the Act, F.No.187/3/2020-ITA-I dated 31st March, 2021 directed that all the Assessment Orders shall be passed by the National Facelss Assessment Centre (NaFAC) u/s 144B of the Act except as under:-

i. Assessment orders in cases assigned to Central Charges. ii. Assessment Orders in cases assigned to International Tax Charges."

(Emphasis Supplied)

22. A plain reading of the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2021

conjointly with the notification dated 29.03.2022 would go to show

that the CBDT has in fact carved out two exceptions so far as

implementing the scheme of faceless assessment. Those two

exceptions are (i) assessment orders in cases assigned to central

charges; and (ii) assessment orders in cases assigned to international

tax charges. So far as the assessment orders in cases assigned to

international tax charges, recently the said exception was under

challenge in a batch of writ petitions before this High Court in the

case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra). While deciding

the said batch of writ petitions, the Hon'ble Division Bench hearing

the said writ petitions took note of the order dated 06.09.2021 and

notification dated 29.03.2022 and in very categorical terms held in

paragraph Nos.23, 24, 27 and 29 as under:

"23. It is noteworthy that the order of CBDT dated 06.09.2021 deals with "assessment orders". The said order is passed in exercise of power under Section 144B of the Act. The order of CBDT is clear that direction was issued about passing of "assessment orders" by the National Faceless Assessment Centre under Section 144B of the Act except in two situations, one of which is passing of assessment orders in cases assigned to International Tax Charges.

24. Thus, there is no cavil of doubt that Section 144B of the Act and order of CBDT dated 06.09.2021 give exemption from following the mandatory faceless procedure only in relation to passing of assessment orders in cases of central charges and international tax charges. Any other interpretation would amount to doing violence with the language employed in the scheme/notification dated 29.03.2022, Section 144B(2) of the Act and order dated 06.09.2021. Since in our view, the plain and unambiguous language used in the scheme and order dated 06.09.2021 shows that the notice under Section 148 does not fall within the 'exception', the judgments cited by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department are of no assistance. The Taxpayer is nowhere distinguished between NRIs and Indian Citizens. The notice issued under Section 148 must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether or not the Taxpayer is NRI/Indian Citizen. Thus, the second limb of argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department deserves to be rejected.

27. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and are of the opinion that the aforesaid underlined expression used in clause 3(b) of the scheme dated 29.03.2022 does not preclude the mandatory faceless procedure for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Any other interpretation, in our humble view, will not only cause violence to the language used, but will also defeat the object for which a transparent 'faceless procedure' was introduced. Hence, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept a different meaning than the literal meaning flowing and conveyed from the provisions.

29. In view of foregoing analysis, it is clear that the respondents have erred in not following the mandatory faceless procedure as prescribed in the scheme dated 29.03.2022. Since notices under Section 148 of the Act were not issued in a faceless manner, the entire further proceeding founded upon it and assessment orders stand vitiated. Thus, the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act and all consequential assessment orders based thereupon are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law."

23. A plain reading of paragraph Nos.23 and 24 would make the

picture very clear so far as the fact that even though the batch of writ

petitions in the case Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra)

were primarily pertaining to assessment orders in cases assigned to

international tax charges, but the Division Bench has also dealt with

the aspect of the assessment orders in cases assigned to central

charges as well holding that it would not make any difference whether

it is cases assigned to central charges or cases assigned to international

tax charges. What was held was that, once when the statute

substantially mandate having the assessment proceedings drawn

through automated scheme allocation in a faceless manner,

subsequently there does not seem to be any exceptions carved out

permitting the JAO to issue proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.

24. In view of the said view expressed by the Division Bench of

this High Court in the case of Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola

(supra), we are of the considered opinion that, if at all if we accept the

analogy canvassed by the Income Tax Department, that by itself

would be diluting the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) and at the same time it would also

water down the series of writ petitions where the proceedings were

issued by JAO and this High Court while allowing the writ petitions

had set aside those proceedings.

25. The entire basis of the learned Additional Solicitor General

seems to be the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of

T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra). However, since there is an

authoritative decision on the said issue by this very High Court, the

judicial propriety requires for this Bench to honor the view taken by

the Division Bench of this High Court itself.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of

Income Tax, Bhopal vs. G.M., Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. 7 ,

dealing with an issue of not following the judgment of the

jurisdictional High Court, held at paragraph No.9 as under:

"9. Apart from the language of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, if we were to accept the submission of the appellant that the Revenue Authorities within the State could refuse to follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision on the ground that the decision of some other High Court was pending disposal by this Court, it would lead to an anarchic situation within the State. If at the time when the power under Section 263 was exercised the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had not been set aside by this Court or at least had not been appealed from, it would not be open to the Commissioner to have proceeded on the basis that the High Court was erroneous and that the assessing officer who had acted in terms of the High Court's decision had acted erroneously."

2003 11 Supreme Court Cases 441

27. Apart from the effect of judicial propriety, we are of the

considered opinion that plain reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) seems to be

more convincing and logical as compared to the judgment heavily

relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General i.e. the

judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders (P.)

Ltd. (supra).

28. So far as the ground raised by the learned Additional Solicitor

General that unless the notices in cases pertaining to central charges

are issued by JAO it would be difficult to enforce the requirement as

is otherwise required under Section 153D of the Act is concerned, we

need to look into the provisions of Section 153D as to what it speaks

for. For ready reference, the relevant portion of Section 153D is

reproduced hereunder:

"153D. Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases or requisition.

No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153-B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner."

A plain reading of the aforesaid Section would show that the

provisions of Section 153D would be applicable in proceedings drawn

under Section 153A and Section 153B.

29. Section 153A of the Act speaks of how assessment in a case of

search and seizure or requisition is to be made. For ready reference,

the relevant portion of Section 153A is also reproduced hereunder:

"153A. Assessment in case of search or requisition.

(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021], the Assessing Officer shall--

(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause

(b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a

return required to be furnished under section 139;

(b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years."

A plain reading of the aforesaid Section would clearly indicate

that though Section 153A is a non-obstante clause, but nowhere does

the said Section speaks of an exception carved out from Section 151A,

which in itself was brought in by way of amendment to the Finance

Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. This in other words means that until and

unless there is a specific exception carved out from the applicability of

Section 151A every assessment proceedings initiated even if it be after

a search and seizure proceedings, even if it be under central charges or

international tax charges, the provisions of Section 151A is what has

to be adhered to for the purpose of initiating a proceeding of

assessment / re-assessment. Section 151A also does not anywhere say

that the said provision of law shall not be applicable in a given