The Gauhati High Court, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. Ram Narayan Sah, has allowed an interlocutory application filed by the Income Tax Department and directed restoration of the taxpayer’s writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The order was passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury on 17 June 2026 in I.A. (Civil) No. 1844 of 2026, arising from W.P. (C) No. 2438 of 2024.
Background of the Dispute
Ram Narayan Sah had filed W.P. (C) No. 2438 of 2024 challenging an order dated 26 March 2024 issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
The principal contention raised by the taxpayer was that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had acted contrary to Section 151A of the Income Tax Act and the E-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. The taxpayer asserted that reassessment proceedings and the issuance of notices under Section 148 were required to be undertaken through automated allocation and a faceless mechanism.
By an order dated 20 May 2024, the Gauhati High Court disposed of the writ petition after considering Section 151A and the 2022 Scheme. The Court granted liberty to the Income Tax Department to issue a fresh notice so that the taxpayer could submit an appropriate reply under the applicable provisions.
Supreme Court’s Subsequent Order
The Income Tax Department challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court. The appeal was registered as Diary No. 34788 of 2025, Union of India v. Ram Narayan Sah.
The appeal formed part of a batch of several thousand matters considered by the Supreme Court in proceedings that included Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Others v. Tej Pratap Singh, Diary No. 2196 of 2026.
By its order dated 10 April 2026, the Supreme Court noted that several High Courts had quashed reassessment notices on the ground that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers lacked competence to initiate the proceedings under the faceless reassessment framework.
The Supreme Court further observed that the legal foundation of those judgments had been altered by the subsequent amending legislation, namely Act No. 4 of 2026. Accordingly, the judgments delivered in favour of the taxpayers were set aside on that limited ground, and the matters were remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration.
Gauhati High Court’s Decision
The Income Tax Department filed the present interlocutory application to bring the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 April 2026 to the notice of the Gauhati High Court.
After considering the subsequent development, the High Court observed that its earlier judgment and order dated 20 May 2024 in W.P. (C) No. 2438 of 2024 had been set aside by the Supreme Court.
The Court consequently allowed the interlocutory application and directed that W.P. (C) No. 2438 of 2024 be restored to its original number on the record.
Legal Significance
The order does not finally decide the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated against the taxpayer. Its immediate effect is procedural: the earlier disposal of the writ petition no longer survives, and the writ petition must now be reconsidered by the High Court.
The case is significant for reassessment disputes involving Sections 148, 148A and 151A of the Income Tax Act, particularly where notices were challenged on the ground that they had been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers rather than through automated allocation and the faceless mechanism prescribed under the 2022 Scheme.
It also reflects the impact of Act No. 4 of 2026 and the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 April 2026 on pending and previously decided reassessment litigation across different High Courts.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court has restored Ram Narayan Sah’s writ petition after taking note of the Supreme Court’s order setting aside the earlier High Court decision. The substantive challenge to the reassessment order and notice will therefore require fresh consideration in the restored writ proceedings.