Supreme Court declines to interfere with Telangana High Court order quashing Section 148 notice
The Supreme Court of India, in ADIT (INT TAXN) 2 Hyd & Anr. Vs Deepanjan Roy, has refused to interfere with the Telangana High Court’s decision granting relief to the assessee in relation to a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Court dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 33956/2025 on 16/07/2025, thereby allowing the High Court’s order to stand undisturbed.
The underlying dispute involved a challenge to reassessment proceedings initiated by issuance of a Section 148 notice, where the assessee had contended that the mandatory faceless procedure was not followed. The Telangana High Court had earlier quashed the reassessment action, and the Revenue’s attempt to overturn that decision before the Supreme Court has now failed.
Background of the dispute
Origin in writ proceedings before Telangana High Court
The matter originated from Writ Petition No. 23573 of 2024 filed before the Telangana High Court by the assessee, Deepanjan Roy, challenging reassessment proceedings commenced under Section 148. The material supplied indicates that the core legal issue revolved around non-compliance with the mandatory faceless assessment/reassessment framework while issuing and pursuing the Section 148 notice.
During the hearing of the writ petition, both sides –
- Counsel representing the writ petitioner (assessee), and
- Counsel representing the Income Tax Department
jointly informed the High Court that the controversy involved in the writ petition stood fully covered by an earlier order passed in W.P. No. 13353 of 2024 and batch. That earlier order, as noted in the supplied material, had dealt with similar reassessment proceedings and had concluded that a Section 148 notice issued in violation of mandatory faceless procedures could not be sustained.
In view of this consensus, the Telangana High Court did not re-examine the legal issue in detail in W.P. No. 23573 of 2024. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by applying, in full, the reasoning and directions already laid down in W.P. No. 13353 of 2024 and batch.
Telangana High Court’s decision in favour of the assessee
Disposition in line with earlier batch order
The Telangana High Court, by order dated 29 August 2024, allowed W.P. No. 23573 of 2024 filed by Deepanjan Roy. The relief was expressly granted “in terms of” the earlier order passed in W.P. No. 13353 of 2024 and batch. The High Court directed that:
- The directions contained in
W.P. No. 13353 of 2024 and batchwould apply mutatis mutandis to the case of Deepanjan Roy. - Such directions would operate “with full force”, thereby extending the entire ratio and operative conclusions of the earlier decision to this writ petition.
- No order as to costs was made.
- All pending interlocutory applications in the writ petition were closed.
The supplied material clarifies that in the earlier batch order, the Telangana High Court had concluded that a Section 148 notice issued without adhering to the prescribed faceless regime was liable to be quashed. Consequently, by applying that earlier view mutatis mutandis, the High Court effectively granted identical relief to Deepanjan Roy, leading to the setting aside of the contested Section 148 notice on the same legal ground.
Revenue’s challenge before the Supreme Court
Filing of Special Leave Petition
Aggrieved by the Telangana High Court’s order in favour of the assessee, the Revenue authorities approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 33956/2025. The petition was filed by ADIT (INT TAXN) 2 Hyd & Anr. challenging the High Court’s order in Deepanjan Roy Vs ADIT (Int Taxn).