Smt. Pushpa Saini v. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Finance, Income Tax Deptt. New Delhi And 4 Others

1. Facts of the case

The petitioner challenged AY 2016-17 reassessment notices, Section 148 A(d) order, sanction and later NFAC notice. She contended that faceless-assessment arrangements deprived the jurisdictional officer of power.

Source: PDF pp.1, 2

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

Competing High Court decisions were cited. The Court expressed only a prima-facie view that the jurisdictional officer did not lose Section 148 A power where reasons and information supported notice. It also recorded the brief 3 April 2023 response and Revenue’s assertion that a longer reply came after the 148 A(d) order.

Source: PDF pp.2, 3

3. Judicial decision

Counter affidavit within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter; list 9 July 2024.

Source: PDF p.3

4. Outcome / in whose favour

Proceedings remained pending; the preliminary view was not a final merits judgment and no express stay was granted.

Source: PDF p.3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

A provisional view on jurisdiction, not a final rule

The Bench expressed a prima-facie view that introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme 2020 did not by itself remove the jurisdictional officer’s Section 148A power where reasons and supporting information existed. The case remained pending for affidavits. That qualification and procedural stage must accompany any citation of the observation.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF pp.1–3, complete supplied order

Competing authorities were recorded in context

The petitioner relied on decisions including Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and Pankajbhai Jaysukh Lal Shah; Revenue cited Triton Overseas and reported an SLP against the Telangana decision. The Bench treated other High Court decisions as persuasive rather than binding on it. The supplied order does not establish the later SLP result, current law or a final reconciliation of those authorities.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF pp.1–3, complete supplied order

The chronology of the reply matters independently

The Court reproduced the short 3 April 2023 jurisdictional response. A later reply exceeding twenty pages was asserted by the petitioner; Revenue said it followed the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice. Those dates matter when assessing what material was before the officer at the decision stage. The order does not finally determine the sufficiency or treatment of either response.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF pp.1–3, complete supplied order

Relief actually granted

The Court called for a counter within four weeks and a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter, listing 9 July 2024. It did not quash the AY 2016-17 notices, sanction or NFAC communication and granted no express stay. The ultimate jurisdictional and factual outcomes require subsequent orders; this interim discussion cannot be presented as final approval of the reopening.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF pp.1–3, complete supplied order