Telangana High Court · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Mohammed Ibrahim Ali v. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. (common judgment with connected petitioners)
W.P. No.40118/2025 and connected writ petitions ·
Jurisdiction of the jurisdictional assessing officer after the faceless reassessment scheme
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
This common judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by jurisdictional assessing officers after the faceless scheme took effect on 29 March 2022. Mohammed Ibrahim Ali is the lead petitioner in W.P.40118/2025; the connected petitions involve different taxpayers, years and notices. The Revenue did not dispute that the impugned initiation occurred after that date.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
Following Kankanala Ravindra Reddy and the coordinate Bench order of 28 April 2025 in W.P.26304/2024, the Court held that the batch was covered by the jurisdictional objection to initiation by the jurisdictional assessing officer instead of the faceless assessing officer. It recorded competing High Court authorities and pending Supreme Court challenges, with no stay of the relied-on judgments reported to it. Its ruling addressed initiation jurisdiction, not the underlying additions or taxable income.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The impugned proceedings under sections 148A and 148 and consequential orders were set aside on the same terms as Kankanala Ravindra Reddy. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, with liberty on the terms of paragraph 18 of the quoted earlier order, allowing appropriate revival following the Supreme Court decision.
4. OUTCOME
The impugned proceedings under sections 148A and 148 and consequential orders were set aside on the same terms as Kankanala Ravindra Reddy. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, with liberty on the terms of paragraph 18 of the quoted earlier order, allowing appropriate revival following the Supreme Court decision.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
The relief remains subject to the Supreme Court outcome and preserved liberty described in the judgment; this note does not assert the current status of those proceedings. The source contains registry material, a common judgment and a multi-petition table with imperfect OCR. The lead caption was visually verified. It does not justify merging distinct petitioners or assigning every listed assessment year to Mohammed Ibrahim Ali.
Source and verification
Complete 138-page supplied source; all pages read.
Original PDF: 138 pages · SHA-256: 031ed084bfe4e88336770f0415623c3727a0dedbb54df3b439d0df5def3e3962
Replacement note authored after complete source review during this release.
Only source-supported provisions are indexed; no Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is asserted.
Subsequent proceedings and judicial treatment have not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.