s.147A — The Assessing Officer for sections 148 and 148A
A retrospective provision declaring that the Assessing Officer for the notice under section 148 and the procedure under section 148A is an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or its assessment units.
Inserted by section 9 of the Finance Act, 2026 and deemed inserted from 1 April 2021. It has been struck down by two High Courts: the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jyoti Sareen v. Union of India (10 September 2026) and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bala Sreenivas Rao Somisetty v. The Income Tax Officer (12 October 2026). On 18 September 2026, in Union of India v. Bharat Industrial Enterprises Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court granted leave, stayed the Punjab and Haryana judgment on condition that the assessment and reassessment proceedings shall not proceed further till the final disposal of the main matter, and listed the appeal for final hearing on 3 December 2026. The validity of the section is undecided.
Income-tax Act, 1961
s.147A
Income-tax Act, 2025
s.279(3)
In force from 1 April 2026, but s.536(2)(c) preserves the 1961 Act for tax years beginning before that date.
In short
Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, order or decree of any court or in section 151A or in any scheme framed thereunder" and "for the removal of doubts", that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A "shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit referred to in sub-section (3) of section 144B". It was inserted by the Finance Act, 2026 and is deemed inserted from 1 April 2021. It answers the High Court decisions which held that, under the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 (Notification No. 18/2022, 29 March 2022), the notice under section 148 could be issued only by a faceless unit, so that notices issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officers were bad. On 10 April 2026, in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Partap Singh, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments for assessees "on this limited ground" (para 22), remitted the matters to the High Courts, and said that it had "not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, including the validity, scope, effect, retrospectivity or applicability of the amended provisions" (para 26). Two High Courts have since struck the section down, and the Supreme Court has stayed one of those judgments and fixed the appeal for final hearing on 3 December 2026. The counterpart in the Income-tax Act, 2025 is section 279(3), under which the Assessing Officer for 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)". It has no override, no "removal of doubts" and no retrospective date.
What the provision does
Defines, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2021, the officer who issues the notice under section 148 and conducts the procedure under section 148A as the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not a faceless unit, overriding judgments, section 151A and any scheme under it. It does not amend section 151A or the Scheme of 29 March 2022, whose clause 3(b) still says that issuance of the notice under section 148 shall be through automated allocation. It does not deal with the reassessment that follows the notice, which section 144B(1) places in the faceless procedure. It does not touch limitation under section 149, the sanction under section 151 or the steps required by section 148A, each of which is an independent ground.
Threshold questions
- Whether the notice under section 148 and the steps under section 148A were taken by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer or by a faceless unit
- Whether the notice was issued on or after 29 March 2022, the date of the Scheme under section 151A
- Which text of sections 148 and 148A applies, the text in force until 31 August 2024 or the text substituted from 1 September 2024
- Whether a writ petition is pending, and whether it has been amended to challenge section 147A
- Whether the proceedings are covered by the interim stay of 10 April 2026 or by the condition in the order of 18 September 2026
- Whether grounds independent of the officer are taken, namely limitation under section 149, the sanction under section 151 and the procedure under section 148A
In practice
The recurring disputes.
Whether the Scheme of 29 March 2022 took the section 148 notice away from the jurisdictional officer
This is the question the section was enacted to close, and it matters again if the section falls. The assessee's case is clause 3(b) of the Scheme, which says that issuance of notice under section 148 "shall be through automated allocation". Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. The Income Tax Officer (Telangana High Court, 14 September 2023, para 26) held it "mandatory for the Revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner", and the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (3 May 2024, para 35) held that "there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO". The judgments for assessees that were before the Supreme Court on 10 April 2026 have been set aside (Tej Partap Singh, para 22), and the Bombay High Court has since recorded that the matters remanded included Hexaware (Dilip Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer-28 (1)(1), Mumbai, 30 October 2026, para 2). They can be cited for their reasoning only. The Revenue's case is the closing words of clause 3, which confine the faceless manner "to the extent provided in section 144B", and T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3) New Delhi (Delhi High Court, 28 October 2024, para 103): "The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent". Two other High Courts record the Gujarat High Court as having decided for the Revenue (T.K.S. Builders, paras 96 and 97; Jyoti Sareen v. Union of India, para 38). The Supreme Court has examined the correctness of neither line.
Whether section 147A is a valid validating enactment
The Revenue's case is that Parliament may remove the basis of a judgment retrospectively. Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough Municipality (Supreme Court, Constitution Bench, 25 April 1969) recognises that the legislature may give "its own meaning and interpretation of the law" and by legislative fiat make it binding on courts. The section defines the Assessing Officer for sections 148 and 148A, and its override names section 151A and any scheme under it, which were the basis of the adverse judgments; the Scheme needed no amendment because the section overrides it in terms. The assessee's case is that the same decision says "it is not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the Court shall not bind", and that under NHPC Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Supreme Court, 6 September 2023, para 11) the alteration must be such that "it would no more be possible for the Court to arrive at the same verdict". Section 151A and the Scheme stand unamended. That is the ground on which the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck the section down in Jyoti Sareen (para 60): without amending section 151A or the Scheme, the "clarification" is "in defiance of and in conflict with the law laid down by the constitutional courts". The firm's view is that the question is evenly balanced and that no assessee should plan on either result. It will be decided by the Supreme Court on or after 3 December 2026.
Whether the section was validly inserted into the 1961 Act at all
The Andhra Pradesh High Court added a second ground in Bala Sreenivas Rao Somisetty (paras 101 to 106). By section 1(2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2026, sections 2 to 129 of that Act came into force on 1 April 2026, the day the Income-tax Act, 2025 commenced. The Bench held (para 104) that the 1961 Act "was repealed on the mid night of 31.03.2026. Therefore insertion of Section 147A to Income Tax Act, 1961 is not sustainable". The Revenue's case is that assent was given on 30 March 2026, when the 1961 Act stood unrepealed; that section 1(2) opens "Save as otherwise provided in this Act"; and that section 9 itself provides that section 147A "shall be inserted and shall be deemed to have been inserted with effect from the 1st day of April, 2021". The ground matters beyond reassessment, because sections 292BA and 292BC and the substitution in section 144B(6)(i)(b) were made by the same Finance Act, though the only provision the Bench struck down was section 147A (para 107). The firm's view is that this is the weaker ground and the one most likely to be resisted. The Supreme Court's order of 18 September 2026 predates that judgment.
What the Supreme Court's interim orders allow in the meantime
The Revenue's position is that the Punjab and Haryana judgment is stayed, so the section operates, and that the order of 10 April 2026 set aside the judgments which had quashed notices issued by jurisdictional officers. The assessee's position is that neither order upholds the section. The order of 10 April 2026 directed (para 27) "an interim stay of further assessment/reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices", subject to terms imposed by the High Courts. The stay of 18 September 2026 (para 5) is granted "on the condition that the assessment and reassessment proceedings shall not proceed further till the final disposal of the main matter", a condition that binds the Revenue. The stay does not touch the Andhra Pradesh judgment, which was delivered on 12 October 2026 with the stay before the Bench (para 100). High Courts have meanwhile kept matters in abeyance: the Calcutta High Court stayed proceedings until the Supreme Court decides (Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. Union of India, 1 October 2026), and the Bombay High Court, in petitions that had been restored to its file on 20 July 2026, granted ad interim relief without ruling on the section (Dilip Enterprises v. Income Tax Officer-28 (1)(1), Mumbai and Rajendra Dadasaheb Pandhare v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Pandharpur, orders of 30 October 2026). How far the two orders protect an assessee who has no petition pending has not been spelt out in either.