"ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 33956/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-08-2024 in WP No. 23573/2024 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad] ADIT (INT TAXN) 2 HYD & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DEEPANJAN ROY Respondent(s) (IA No. 157270/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP & IA No. 157271/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 16-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Keshav Thakur, Adv. Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Exemption Application is allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.07.16 20:18:32 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified COUNSELVISE INSIGHT: JAO VS FAO – A PROCEDURAL TUG OF WAR IN REASSESSMENT NOTICES One of the most debated procedural questions in tax practice today is that who is empowered to issue reassessment notices under Section 148 in the post-faceless regime: the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? This issue has gained urgency because, in thousands of cases, reassessment notices have been issued physically by JAOs and subsequently transferred to the faceless system. The core contention is that such issuance violates the very objective of the faceless assessment scheme which was intended to eliminate physical interface and ensure centralized, automated functioning. This debate gained momentum after the Telangana High Court, in the case of Deepanjan Roya, held that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAOs in line with the CBDT Notification dated 29 March 2022. Clause 3(b) of this scheme specifically mandates automated allocation and faceless issuance, even for reassessment notices. The Court held that issuance by a JAO defeats the objective of the faceless regime. The Revenue challenged this verdict before the Supreme Court, but the SLP was recently dismissed that too without a speaking order. While some view this as a setback for the Department, it is important to remember that such a dismissal does not amount to a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Moreover, there was no senior Revenue counsel present during the hearing, which may have influenced the outcome. However, the final verdict is yet to be delivered. Over 700 similar matters, including prominent cases like Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills and Hexaware are pending before another bench of the Supreme Court, and that ruling will ultimately settle this legal question. It’s important to highlight what’s at stake here. If the Court ultimately rules that JAOs lack the authority under the faceless regime to issue Section 148 notices, more than one lakh reassessment notices may stand nullified. This would be a significant relief to taxpayers across the country. Whichever way the Supreme Court leans its final words will redefine how reassessment is administered in India’s faceless tax era. "