{"id":64575,"date":"2026-09-11T13:59:25","date_gmt":"2026-09-11T08:29:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jyoti-sareen-ors-v-uoi-phhc-www-itatonline-org\/"},"modified":"2026-09-11T13:59:25","modified_gmt":"2026-09-11T08:29:25","slug":"jyoti-sareen-ors-v-uoi-phhc-www-itatonline-org","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/jyoti-sareen-ors-v-uoi-phhc-www-itatonline-org\/","title":{"rendered":"Jyoti Sareen & Ors v. UOI (P&H)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, introduced retrospectively with effect from 1-4-2021, as well as notices issued under section 148 by their respective jurisdictional Assessing Officers. The challenge arose after several constitutional Courts, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Bombay High Court, Telangana High Court and Gauhati High Court, had held that, in view of section 151A and the scheme dated 29-03-2022 framed thereunder, notices under section 148 were required to be issued by a faceless Assessing Officer through random and automated allocation. The Supreme Court, while remitting the earlier matters after introduction of section 147A, had left open the constitutional validity, scope, effect and retrospectivity of the amendment. The High Court held that though the legislature has power to enact retrospective legislation and remove the basis of a judicial decision, it cannot merely declare a judgment of a constitutional Court to be ineffective or seek to overrule the interpretation placed by the Court without curing the defect which formed the basis of the judgment. Section 147A, by its non-obstante clause, sought to neutralise the judgments of constitutional Courts, while section 151A and the scheme framed thereunder continued to mandate issuance of notices through faceless and randomly allocated Assessing Officers. The Court held that the amendment neither removed the basis of the earlier judgments nor brought the statutory scheme into conformity with those judgments and amounted to legislative overreach, violating the doctrine of separation of powers. Section 147A was accordingly declared unconstitutional and struck down<\/strong>.<\/b> The Court further held that the impugned notices under section 148 were illegal as they had not been issued through random automated allocation and in a faceless manner as mandated by section 151A and the scheme dated 29-03-2022. The notices under section 148 were therefore set aside and all the writ petitions were allowed. \u00a0(AY. 2020-21) (CWP No. 15791 of 2024 dt. 10-09-2026)<\/strong><\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

S.147A: Reassessment \u2013 Face less Assessment – Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148, 148A – Constitutional validity \u2013 Retrospective amendment \u2013 Section 147A introduced with retrospective effect from 1-4-2021 to provide that Assessing Officer for purposes of sections 148 and 148A would mean an Assessing Officer other than National Faceless Assessment Centre\/assessment unit \u2013 Amendment seeking to neutralise judgments of constitutional Courts holding that notices under section 148 were required to be issued by faceless Assessing Officer \u2013 Legislature cannot directly overrule or set aside judgments of constitutional Courts without removing the basis of such judgments \u2013 Section 147A held unconstitutional and struck down \u2013 Notices under section 148 issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers without random automated allocation and in faceless manner also quashed \u2013 Writ petitions allowed. [ Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 265 of the Constitution of India, S. 130, 144B(3 ) 147 , 148, 151A .]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gNx","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64575"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64575\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":64576,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64575\/revisions\/64576"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}