M/S EMPIRE FASTENERS vs. THE ASSISTENT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions. The Court held that a co-ordinate bench in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer had settled the issue regarding jurisdiction in Delhi, establishing that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the Faceless Assessing Officer possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. This decision was followed by another co-ordinate bench in PC Jeweller Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. The Court noted that although appeals against TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. and PC Jeweller Limited are pending before the Supreme Court, no stay has been granted on the operation of these judgments. The Court also referred to several other writ petitions (Mala Petrochemicals and Polymers, Mehak Jagga, and All India Kataria Education Society) where similar petitions were dismissed by relying on TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the submissions of the petitioner were not accepted.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, M/s Empire Fasteners, filed two writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(3) and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The core of the challenge was that the notice under Section 148A(1) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The petitioners relied on judgments from the Bombay High Court, which were upheld by the Supreme Court through dismissal of Special Leave Petitions. The Revenue contended that the Delhi High Court had already settled this issue in favour of concurrent jurisdiction for both Jurisdictional and Faceless Assessing Officers.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 148A(1) by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, vitiates the reassessment proceedings, considering the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the established jurisprudence on faceless assessment? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned notice under Section 148A(1) was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the Faceless Assessing Officer, which vitiates the proceedings. (Relied on: Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Prakash Pandurang Patil vs. Income Tax Officer). - The Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP in Prakash Pandurang Patil upholds the Bombay High Court's view on the necessity of a Faceless Assessing Officer. Revenue's Contentions: - The Delhi High Court has settled the law in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, holding that both Jurisdictional Assessing Officers and Faceless Assessing Officers have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. - The dismissal of SLP in Prakash Pandurang Patil was in limine and does not set a binding precedent on the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. (Relied on: Khoday Distilleries Limited vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited). - Similar petitions have been dismissed by coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court relying on TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Order bearing No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025- W.P. (C) 14754/2025 & W.P. (C) 14755/2025 26/1077934313(1) dated 27.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 1 under sub-section (3) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-20; (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned Notice bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2025-26/1077935009(1) dated 27.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-20, and;”
The submission of Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is primarily that the impugned notice issued on 08.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2019-20 Pandurang Patil vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Panvel & Ors in Writ Petition No. 10749/2024, decided by the Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee, the SLP against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer Ward 5 Panvel & Ors. vs. Prakash Pandurang Patil, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 39689/2025, on 18.08.2025. According to him, the issue as to whether it is the Faceless Assessing Officer which would have the requisite jurisdiction stands settled by the Supreme Court. He states that the dismissal of the SLP being on W.P. (C) 14754/2025 & W.P. (C) 14755/2025 merits, the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which has relied upon in re-assessment. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgment in 376, wherein paragraph 26.2 states as under:- “26. 2. We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: (Kunhayammed case, SCC p. 384) “(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the W.P. (C) 14754/2025 & W.P. (C) 14755/2025 grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.”
He states that the order of the Supreme Court in Prakash Pandurang Patil (Supra) does not give any reasons and as such is a dismissal in limine. Further, his contention is that this Court in the case of PC Jeweller Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) 13229/2024, W.P. (C) 14754/2025 & W.P. (C) 14755/2025 decided on 23.01.2025, has dismissed a petition with similar challenges by relying upon TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the submission of Mr. Chitale cannot be accepted for the reason that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has settled the issue insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, by stating that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the Faceless Assessing Officer have concurrent jurisdiction.
Suffice it to state, as referred to by Mr. Maratha, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of PC Jeweller (Supra), has also dismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the ratio in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Though the judgment in PC Jeweller (Supra), has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court, we note that the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings on the caveat that any order, if passed adverse to the petitioner, shall not be given effect.
While it is true that the appeal against TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is also pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, we note that the Supreme Court has not stayed the operation of the judgment. The judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Supra) is also pending consideration before the Supreme Court.
That apart, even in the cases of M/s Mala Petrochemicals and Polymers vs. the Income Tax Officer & Ors. WP(C) 12011/2025, decided on 19.08.2025, Mehak Jagga vs. ITO (W.P.(C) 13149/2025, decided on 28.08.2025 and All India Kataria Education Society vs. DCIT W.P.(C) 14225/2025, decided on 15.09.2025 we have dismissed similar petitions by W.P. (C) 14754/2025 & W.P. (C) 14755/2025 relying upon TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).
In view of the above, the captioned petitions are dismissed. The pending applications, having become infructuous, are also dismissed. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2025/sr
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
