Yes—an income-tax reassessment notice can be challenged if the issuing officer lacked statutory or scheme-based authority. In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court, 3 May 2024), the court held that the faceless-reassessment scheme made under section 151A covered issuance of a section 148 notice. On the facts before it, a notice issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO), rather than through the faceless structure, was invalid.
That is not a uniform, India-wide rule. The Delhi High Court took a different view in Raj Kumar Sabharwal v. ACIT on 4 February 2025, rejecting a challenge based only on the argument that automated faceless allocation was mandatory. The result depends on the notice date, statutory regime, officer and allocation record, procedural stage, and the precedent binding in the court where relief is sought.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What “without jurisdiction” means in a reassessment case
Jurisdiction is the legal authority to perform a particular act. For a reassessment, that authority is distributed among the Income-tax Act, 1961, the applicable reassessment provisions, approval requirements, and any notified faceless scheme governing the proceeding.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
A section 148 notice is the document that starts the reassessment under section 147. Before issuing it under the substituted regime, the department ordinarily follows section 148A, including the show-cause notice under section 148A(b) and the order under section 148A(d). Section 151 concerns the specified sanction or approval. A challenge based on the identity or allocation of the officer asks whether that particular person or unit was legally empowered to issue the document in the circumstances that existed.
#1 Best Overall
This is different from arguing that the notice is late, that approval was missing, that the section 148A process was not followed, or that the information suggesting escaped income was legally insufficient. Those are independent objections. A notice can raise more than one issue, but each ground must be proved from its own dates, documents and governing authority.
Why section 151A and the faceless scheme matter
Section 151A(1) authorises the Central Government to make a scheme for specified functions connected with assessment and reassessment. The Income Tax Department’s description of the provision identifies these functions:
- assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147;
- issuance of a notice under section 148;
- enquiries, show-cause notices and orders under section 148A; and
- sanction under section 151.
The stated objectives include reducing direct interaction where technology permits, using resources through scale and functional specialisation, and assigning work to teams with dynamic jurisdiction. The interpretive question is whether the notified scheme governs only the work after a notice is issued, or also the act of issuing the section 148 notice itself.
In Hexaware, the Bombay High Court read section 151A together with the 2022 notified scheme and concluded that issuance of the section 148 notice was included. It rejected, on the facts before it, the proposition that the JAO and a faceless assessing officer (FAO) had concurrent authority to issue the notice. The court therefore treated the JAO-issued notice as invalid.
The principal decisions and what each one establishes
| Decision | Date and forum | Issue and holding | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | 3 May 2024, Bombay High Court | The section 151A scheme covered issuance of a section 148 notice. On the challenged facts, the JAO lacked authority to issue it outside the faceless allocation contemplated by the scheme. | Strong authority for a jurisdiction objection in the Bombay High Court’s territorial jurisdiction, subject to the exact notice and scheme applicable. |
| Pravina Jagdish Patel v. Income-Tax Officer | 22 July 2024, Bombay High Court | Applied Hexaware to another JAO-issued notice and stated that there was no concurrent JAO/FAO jurisdiction for issuance under section 148 in the circumstances considered. | Shows that the Bombay High Court applied the reasoning beyond the original case; the individual record still matters. |
| Raj Kumar Sabharwal v. ACIT | 4 February 2025, Delhi High Court | Rejected a challenge whose sole premise was that the notice could be issued only through automated faceless allocation and not by the JAO. | Demonstrates a material inter-High-Court difference. A Bombay ruling cannot automatically be treated as the rule in Delhi or nationwide. |
High Court decisions bind courts and authorities within their own territorial framework, while decisions from another High Court may be persuasive but are not automatically controlling. The supplied authorities do not establish that a reported Supreme Court special-leave-petition dismissal resolved the broader disagreement. That point should be checked against the official Supreme Court record before being relied on as a nationwide rule.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Check these facts before alleging lack of jurisdiction
An officer’s name on the notice is only the starting point. Build a dated record of the entire proceeding.
- Identify the assessment year. Record the year concerned and the date on which each communication was issued and served.
- Classify every document. Determine whether the challenged paper is a section 148 notice, a section 148A(b) show-cause notice, a section 148A(d) order, or a later reassessment order. Different documents perform different statutory functions.
- Confirm the actual issuer. Note the officer’s designation, office, digital signature and any document metadata. Distinguish the JAO from an FAO or another faceless unit.
- Look for allocation evidence. Preserve portal records, notices, orders and attachments showing whether the case was assigned through an automated or faceless process, or handled by a jurisdictional office.
- Map the governing law. Determine which version of sections 147, 148, 148A, 151 and 151A applied on the relevant dates and whether the 2022 scheme governed the act being challenged.
- Check the court that can hear the case. Identify the High Court whose jurisdiction is invoked and the decisions that are binding there. Do not assume that a favourable decision from another state controls your petition.
Separate defects that should be analysed alongside officer authority
The JAO/FAO question should not replace ordinary reassessment checks. Analyse each of these independently:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Limitation
Compare the notice date with the statutory time limit applicable to the assessment year and the governing version of the Act. A notice issued within time is not automatically valid if another mandatory condition was missing; a notice issued out of time is not cured merely because the correct officer signed it.
Sanction or approval under section 151
Confirm whether the required prior approval was obtained from the prescribed authority and whether the record identifies that approval. The approval issue is legally distinct from whether the notice was allocated to a JAO or FAO.
Section 148A procedure
Check whether the department supplied the section 148A(b) show-cause notice, allowed the required opportunity, considered the response and passed the section 148A(d) order before issuing the section 148 notice, where that procedure applied. A procedural failure is a separate ground and must be tied to the documents and dates in the file.
Information suggesting escaped income
Assess whether the material relied on meets the statutory standard applicable to the notice. Do not assume that an officer with authority can issue a valid notice without legally sufficient information.
Transition from the old reassessment regime
For notices issued during the change from the former provisions to the substituted regime, the Supreme Court’s directions in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal are important. The cited material describes specified notices issued after 1 April 2021 under the old regime as being treated as section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, with the new process, time limits and approval requirements to be followed. Whether those directions apply to a particular notice depends on its date, form and subsequent steps.
How to evaluate a possible challenge
1. Make a document-and-date schedule
Create a table listing the assessment year, date of alleged information, section 148A(b) notice, response deadline, section 148A(d) order, section 148 notice, approval and service. Include the name and designation shown on every document. This often reveals that a supposed “wrong officer” issue actually concerns a later order, not the initiating notice.
2. Compare the record with the applicable scheme
Read the version of the notified faceless scheme in force for the proceeding and identify the function it assigns. The key question is not whether the department uses faceless technology generally, but whether the scheme legally reserved issuance of this particular notice to a faceless unit in these circumstances.
3. Apply the controlling local precedent
In the Bombay High Court, Hexaware and Pravina Jagdish Patel support an objection where the facts match their treatment of JAO-issued section 148 notices. In Delhi, Raj Kumar Sabharwal shows that a challenge resting only on mandatory automated allocation may fail. Other High Courts may have different or later authority. Check for subsequent binding decisions before drafting the ground.
Rank #4
4. Plead the grounds separately
State the officer-authority argument as one ground, then set out limitation, approval, section 148A compliance, information sufficiency and transition issues separately. This prevents a court from treating a defect in one part of the process as an answer to every other objection.
5. Choose the procedural route carefully
A writ petition has been used in the cited cases, but the available authorities do not establish that writ review is available or appropriate in every procedural posture. The correct remedy can depend on whether the matter is still at the notice stage, has progressed to a reassessment order, or is subject to another statutory route. Obtain advice on forum, timing and any response that must be filed to protect your position.
What outcome can you reasonably seek?
Where a court accepts that the issuing officer lacked authority, the usual relief sought in the cited cases is quashing or setting aside the impugned notice. The scope of relief still depends on the pleadings, the record and any later statutory steps. A court may examine whether the defect is jurisdictional, whether it was cured by a legally available process, and whether the petitioner has challenged the correct document.
Do not treat a mismatch between the taxpayer’s expected jurisdiction and the officer named on the notice as conclusive. Administrative restructuring, dynamic jurisdiction and faceless teams can make an officer’s physical location different from the taxpayer’s address without making the notice unlawful. The legally relevant questions are the statutory function, the notified scheme, the allocation record and the precedent binding in the chosen forum.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallPractical evidence checklist
- Complete copies of every notice, order, annexure and approval, including the electronic header or digital-signature details.
- The assessment-year return, earlier assessment order and correspondence that identify the taxpayer’s jurisdiction.
- Portal download history, service records and screenshots showing when documents became available.
- The officer’s designation and office address as displayed on each communication.
- Any response filed to the section 148A(b) notice and the department’s section 148A(d) order.
- Calculations showing the applicable limitation period and the effect, if any, of the 2021 transition directions.
- Advice addressing the High Court with territorial jurisdiction and the latest binding authority there.
Questions taxpayers commonly ask
Is every JAO-issued section 148 notice invalid?
No. The Bombay High Court decisions support that conclusion on the facts and statutory scheme considered there, while the Delhi High Court has rejected a challenge based solely on mandatory automated allocation. The notice date, governing scheme, record and forum control.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Can I rely on Hexaware outside Maharashtra?
You may cite it as persuasive authority, but it is not automatically binding on every High Court. Determine the controlling decisions in the court that can grant relief.
Does a valid officer cure a late notice or missing approval?
No. Limitation and section 151 approval are separate statutory requirements. They must be tested independently.
Does Ashish Agarwal automatically validate an old-regime notice?
No. Its transition directions apply only to the categories and circumstances covered by the judgment. Verify the notice date, form, subsequent section 148A steps, time limits and approvals.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsMust I wait for a reassessment order before raising jurisdiction?
Not necessarily, but the appropriate remedy depends on the procedural stage and available statutory routes. The cited material does not establish a universal rule that every notice-stage dispute must, or may, be taken to writ court.
Bottom line for a taxpayer served with the notice
A reassessment notice can be attacked for lack of jurisdiction when the issuing officer was not authorised under the applicable Act and faceless scheme. The argument is particularly supported by the Bombay High Court’s 2024 decisions, but it is contested elsewhere, as the Delhi High Court’s 2025 decision illustrates. Preserve the complete record, identify the statutory regime and issuing unit, check limitation and approval separately, and use the precedent binding in the relevant forum before deciding how to respond.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
