ASSESSMENT UNIT vs. SRI. SOHANLAL

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX, WARD 5(2)(1), BMPTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6H BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. …APPELLANTS

The above writ appeal is listed on the memo moved by learned counsel for the appellants/Revenue and

Learned counsel appearing for the parties bring to the notice of this Court the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4716/2026 dated 10.04.2026 reported in [2026] 185 Taxmann.com 1007 (SC), whereunder the Hon'ble Apex Court in identical fact situation, taking note of the amendment by way of insertion of Section 147A into the Income Tax Act, passed the following order: “15. It is stated by the Learned Assistant Solicitor General that by inserting Section 147A into the IT Act, the term ‘Assessing Officer’ has been expressly clarified to mean an officer other than the faceless units and the same is deemed to have come into effect retrospectively from 01.04.2021. The said provision reads as follows: Insertion of new section 147A.

After section 147 of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2021, namely:––

It is also asserted that the amendment to Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, 2025 is to bring it in consonance with the newly inserted Section 147A of the IT Act, thereby implying that the “Assessing Officer” for the purposes of Sections 280 and 281 of the Income Tax Act, 2025 shall mean to be an Assessing Officer other than the NFAC or any assessment unit referred to in Section 273(3). The amended Section 279 reads as follows: 71. In section 279 of the Income-tax Act, after sub-section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely: –– ‘(3) The “Assessing Officer” for the purposes of sections 280 and 281 shall mean to be an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit referred to in section 273(3).’

In this backdrop, where an interpretative issue concerning the older provisions is already under consideration, it is contended on behalf of the Appellant-Revenue that the Parliament, from the outset, intended that while

It is urged that, in light of the divergent views taken by the High Courts owing to perceived ambiguity in the existing law, Parliament has now made the clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, the date on which the original provisions came into force, and that the alleged anomalous situation, if any, has been removed. It was additionally submitted that the power to enact retrospective amendments is well settled in law, and that fresh notices will now be issued to assessees in accordance with the clarified position, so that pending reassessment proceedings may be concluded in accordance with law.

Conversely, it has been vehemently urged on behalf of the assessees that the new Amendment is not ‘clarificatory’ in nature but is rather an abortive attempt to fasten penal liability retrospectively, which is impermissible under law. It is their contention that the amending laws having antedated civil consequences ought to be construed strictly.

In all fairness, we may add that several other contentions have also been raised by both sides, which we do not consider it necessary to advert to at this stage in light of the order we propose to pass. In the facts of the present batch, we are of the considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the rival submissions concerning the correctness of the impugned judgments or the scope of the competing precedents at this juncture.

It appears to us that the assessees would be entitled to challenge the amending provisions as elaborated upon heretofore, for which it would only be appropriate to relegate them to the jurisdictional High Courts. All contentions raised before us, as well as any other grounds available to them to question the impugned notices, may be urged before the High Courts instead.

Since the High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the JAOs lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgments in favor of the assessees are set aside on this limited ground. The matters are

The assessees are granted liberty to amend their writ petitions, if so advised, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of uploading of this order, so as to enable them to lay challenge to Section 147A of the IT Act, as introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, or to any other connected or consequential provision.

Similarly, the Appellant-Revenue shall be at liberty to file their written submissions and affidavits before the jurisdictional High Courts within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

No additional time shall be granted to the parties beyond what has been granted above.

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions, and all such questions are left open to be decided by the High Courts.

Finally, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Courts, there shall be an interim stay of further assessment/reassessment

The High Courts are requested to decide the matters preferably by 30.09.2026. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to extend full cooperation to the High Courts in this regard. No adjournments may be granted by the High Courts on mere asking of the parties.”

Learned counsel appearing for the parties seek disposal of the above writ appeal in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to above. Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee seeks liberty to lay challenge to Section 147A of the Act in terms of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Learned senior counsel Sri.K.K.Chythanya also brings to the notice of this Court, order dated 04.05.2026 in SLP(C).No.8682/2024 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

Taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as taking note of the above referred orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we do not deem it fit to go into the merits of the case. We deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned

Hence, the following: ORDER