Telangana High Court

Rafath Binth Fareed vs Assessment Unit on 11 November, 2025

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                           AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION Nos.33979, 30153, 29934, 30161, 30249,
  31039, 31041, 31044, 31045, 31069, 31072, 31076,
  31226, 31271, 31510, 31754, 31758, 31892, 31894,
  31914, 32043, 32097, 32126, 32130, 32133, 32134,
  32287, 32302, 32326, 32446, 32447, 32475, 32672,
  32751, 32802, 32825, 32983, 33002, 33004, 33308,
  33314, 33326, 33630, 33712, 30477, 30558, 30587,
  30601, 30602, 30667, 30689, 30704, 30718, 30737,
 30739, 30752, 30801, 30931, 30945, 30946, 30951 and
                   30957 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Ms. Akruti Agarwal, Mr. M.Shriraj, learned counsel

representing M/s. R.S.Associates, Mr. Kailash Nath P.S.S.,

Mr. Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, Mr. Chanda Sumanth,

Mr. P.Soma Shekar Reddy, Mr. C.V.Narasimhan, learned

counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Mukhairuddin, Mr. B.Krishna

Reddy, Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, Mr. V.Aneesh, Mr. A.V.A.Siva

Kartikeya, Mr. Sashank Dundu, learned counsel representing

Mr. Dundu Manmohan, Mr. Parikshith Kutur, Mr. S.Vijay

Adithya, Mr. Pramod Maligi, Mr. B.Muralidar, learned counsel

representing Mr. V.V.S.Ankith, Mr. M.Pranay Sagar,

Mr. M.Mehdi Hussain, Ms. Sneha Asthana, Mr. Gopala Rao

Amancharla V., Mr. Akshay Mantri, Mr. Chokkapu Neela

Achyuth, Mr. Appasani Ram Dheeraj and Ms. P.Praneeta Sri,

learned counsel representing Ms. Sheetal Srikanth, learned

counsel for the petitioners.

Ms. J.Sunitha, Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Mr. N.Praveen

Reddy, Mr. Vijhay K Punna, Mr. K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned

Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Income Tax

Department.

Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing

Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India,

appears for Union of India.

2. In all these writ petitions the challenge is to the initiation

of proceedings under Sections 148(A) and 148 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") by the Jurisdictional

Assessing Officer (JAO).

3. Petitioners though have taken other pleas in most of these

writ petitions, but they submit that the issues involved in the

present batch of writ petitions have been considered and settled

by the judgment rendered by the learned Coordinate Bench of

this Court in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 vide order dated

28.04.2025 following the decision rendered in the case of

Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer 1. It is

submitted that the present writ petitions may be disposed of on

same lines after setting aside the impugned proceedings under

Sections 148(A) and 148 of the Act and on similar terms as are

set out in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) and

also in W.P.No.26304 of 2024, dated 28.04.2025.

4. In support of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, they relied on the judgments of the

Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others 2, Abhin

Anilkumar Sah vs. Income Tax Officer (International

Taxation) and others 3, Bank of India vs. Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax and others 4; judgment of

Gauhati High Court in Ram Narayan Sah vs. Union of India

and others 5, judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others 6,

judgments of Telangana High Court in Venkataramana Reddy

Patloola vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and

(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)

(2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom)

(2024) 468 ITR 350 (Bom)

(2024) 471 ITR 228 (Gauhati)

(2024) 466 ITR 474 (P&H)

others 7, Shaik Sajid vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax

Department and others 8, Kings Pride Infra Projects (P) Ltd.,

vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 9, Satyaprakash

Chigurupati vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

Ward 6(1), Hyderabad 10 and Deloitte Consulting India (P)

Ltd., vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department 11,

judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Govind Singh vs.

Income Tax Officer 12, judgment of Gujarat High Court in

Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya vs. Income Tax Officer,

Ward 3(3)(5) 13, judgment of Jharkhand High Court in Shyam

Sunder Saw vs. Union of India and others 14, judgment of

Calcutta High Court in Giridhar Gopal Dalmia vs. Union of

India and others 15, judgments of Madras High Court in TVS

Credit Services Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Tax 16 and Mark Studio India Pvt., Ltd., vs. Income Tax

Officer and another 17, judgments of Rajasthan High Court in

(2023) 468 ITR 181 (Telangana)

(2025) 176 taxmann.com 704 (Telangana)

W.P.No.21063 of 2025 & batch

(2025) 178 taxmann.com 781 (Telangana)

(2024) 165 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)

(2024) SCC OnLine Guj 4012

(2025) SCC OnLine Jhar 287

(2025) 174 taxmann.com 1078 (Mad) (SB)

Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. Income Tax Officer and another 18

and Shree Cement Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax 19, and judgment of Karnataka High Court in

Ramchandra Reddy Ravi Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner

of Income Tax 20.

5. These matters have been clubbed together for the reason

that all of them assail the proceedings initiated under Section

148(A) followed by notice under Section 148 of the Act for

reopening the assessment by the JAO. The dates of the

impugned notices and proceedings have been referred to in the

individual writ petitions, which are post 29.03.2022 i.e., the

date on which the Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under Section 151A of the Act has made the

e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2002

vide Notification No.18 of 2022.

6. The respondent Department was asked to obtain

instructions and file counter affidavit, if necessary, on facts and

legal issues raised herein.

(2025) 477 ITR 228 (Raj)

(2025) 177 taxmann.com 538 (Rajasthan)

(2025) 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)

7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent

Department has obtained instructions in all these matters.

Based upon the instructions received from the Department,

learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the

initiation of impugned proceedings under Section 148(A) of the

Act has been done by the JAO after coming into force of the

faceless scheme with effect from 29.03.2022.

8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents

have also not been able to dispute that the legal issue as

regards the jurisdiction of the JAO to initiate proceedings

instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have been well

settled by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26304

of 2024 followed in several other judgments.

9. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents also

do not dispute that a number of other jurisdictional High

Courts have also taken the same view. However, they submit

that a contrary view has been taken in the following decisions

as well. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the

judgment of the Bombay High Court in Caishen Enterprise

LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner 21, judgments of Madras High

Court in Mark Studio India (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer 22

and Perur Builders (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer 23,

judgment of Gujarat High Court in Talati and Talati LLP Vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 24 and judgment of

Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd., Vs. Income Tax

Officer 25.

10. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents

submit that SLP(C).No.027736 of 2023 and batch challenging

the orders passed by this Court and other jurisdictional High

Courts are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no

stay of the impugned judgments has been granted in favour of

the revenue.

11. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and also the relevant factual assertion

made by the petitioners that the impugned proceedings have

been initiated by the JAO after coming into force of the Faceless

Scheme with effect from 29.03.2022. The relevant details

(2025) 176 taxmann.com 471 (Bombay)

(2024) 169 taxmann.com 542 (Madras)

(2025) 175 taxmann.com 253 (Madras)

(2024) 167 taxmann.com 371 (Gujarat)

(2024) 167 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi)

concerning individual petitioners are appended to this order

and shall be treated as part of the order. They indicate the

relevant assessment year, the date of notice issued under

Section 148A of the Act, the date of the order under Section 148

of the Act, the date of sanction under Section 151 of the Act,

intimation to proceed with assessment under Section 144B of

the Act in some cases, the date of assessment order in some of

the cases as against the individual writ petitions referred to in

Column No.1.

12. From a perusal of the tabulation chart it is apparent that

the impugned proceedings in all these cases have been initiated

by JAO after coming into force of the Faceless Scheme with

effect from 29.03.2022.

13. The legal issue as regards the lack of jurisdiction on the

part of JAO to initiate the proceedings post implementation of

the Faceless Scheme is no longer res integra as it has been held

in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (supra) and by other

jurisdictional High Courts.

14. As a matter of fact, several orders following the ratio

rendered in the above cases have been passed one after the

other. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present

batch of writ petitions also stand covered by the decision

rendered by this Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra

Reddy (supra). The relevant extract of the order dated

28.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.26304 of 2024 is reproduced

hereunder:

"15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generate further litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a large number of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent stand that the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer [(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has

already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder:

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. As a consequence, all the impugned orders getting quashed, the consequential orders passed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the notices issued under Sections 147 and 148 would also get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason we are quashing the consequential order is on the principles that when the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically.

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, supra, [Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)], 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, supra.

18. We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) is subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024, preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue.

19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. As a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed in similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra).

There shall be no order as to costs."

15. The impugned proceedings under Sections 148A and 148

of the Act assailed in these writ petitions are set aside. The

consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside on similar

terms as held in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy

(supra). The revenue is also granted liberty in the same terms

as at para 18 of the above quoted orders.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order

as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ