S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless regime-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 01.04.2022-Held to be valid-The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance-Writ petitions dismissed-Not followed Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338 CTR 536 (Bom)(HC). [S. 119 120, 124, 144B, 147, 148 148A, 151A, Art. 226]
A group of petitions challenged the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) to issue notices u/s 148 after 01.04.2022 on the ground that, after introduction of Section 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 (Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022), such notices could be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer through automated allocation. Petitioners relied heavily on the Bombay High Court judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338 CTR 536 (Bom)(HC) and similar rulings of Telangana, Gauhati, Punjab & Haryana and Rajasthan High Courts holding that notices issued by JAOs post 1-4-2022 are without jurisdiction; Revenue pointed out conflicting views of Calcutta and Delhi High Courts and submitted that SLP against Hexaware is pending before the Supreme Court. The Gujarat High Court examined the statutory scheme under Sections 147, 148, 148A, 151A, 120, 124, 130 and Section 144B along with the 2022 Faceless Schemes to determine whether issuance of notice by the JAO, instead of the Faceless system, vitiates jurisdiction. The matter was admitted earlier and, considering over 400 pending petitions on the same issue and divergent views of various High Courts, the Court heard both sides on the common question of law regarding the validity of reassessment notices issued by JAOs after 1-4-2022 under the faceless regime. After analysing Section 151A, the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, and Section 144B, as well as divergent High Court rulings (including Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338 CTR 536 (Bom)(HC , Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO [2023] 295 Taxman 652 (Telengana)(HC) Triton Overseas P. Ltd v UOI [2023] 156 taxmann.com 318 (Cal)(HC),T.K.S. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO( 2024) 167 taxmann.com 759. 469 ITR 657 (Delhi)(HC)
The Court held that:
1. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) can validly issue notice under Section 148.
The Court rejected the contention that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)/NFAC can issue such notices.

2. “Faceless manner” in the Scheme applies only to assessment/reassessment, not to issuance of notice.
The Court held that the phrase “and in faceless manner” in the Scheme is qualified by the words that follow it — “to the extent provided in Section 144B with reference to making assessment or reassessment”—meaning:
3.Faceless assessment is mandatory,
Faceless issuance of notice under Section 148 is not mandated, because Section 144B does not cover issuance of Section 148 notices.
4. The Scheme, 2022 does NOT eliminate the JAO’s jurisdiction to issue notice.
The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance. Section 148A enquires and satisfaction must still be carried out by the Assessing Officer, which is consistent with JAO issuing the notice.
5. The interpretation adopted by Bombay & Telangana High Courts (Hexaware line of cases) was not accepted.
The Court expressly disagreed with the view that only NFAC/FAO has jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices.
Petitions challenging jurisdiction of JAO to issue notice under Section 148 were dismissed.
The Court upheld the validity of notices issued by JAOs after 01-04-2022. (SCA No. 9909 of 2022 dt. 17/9/2025)
Snehdham Trust & Ors v. ACIT (Guj)(HC) www.itatonline .org
[Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Bhargav D. Karia And Honourable Mr. Justice Pranav Trivedi]