Bombay HC Waives Re-Verification Of Amended Pleadings Challenging Section 147A IT Act After SC Ruling

The Bombay High Court has waived re-verification of amended pleadings in pending writ petitions challenging income tax reassessment notices, where assessees now seek to challenge the newly inserted Section 147A following the Supreme Court's ruling in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh v. Tej Pratap Singh.

A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe said re-verification need not be insisted upon, noting that a large number of similar reassessment matters were pending before the Court.

“We permit the re-verification to be dispensed with,” the Bench said. It added, “Needless to observe that, in all such matters, the petitioners would be required to carry out the amendments, if they so desire. Re-verification be not insisted" 

The order follows the Supreme Court's April 10 ruling in Tej Pratap Singh, which set aside High Court judgments that had quashed reassessment notices on the ground that they were issued by jurisdictional assessing officers rather than through the faceless assessment mechanism.

The apex court remitted the matters to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration and allowed assessees to amend their petitions to challenge Section 147A and related provisions.

Section 147A was introduced through the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2021. It clarifies that for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A, the “assessing officer” means an officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or assessment units under the faceless regime.

Before the Bombay High Court, the petitioners said they intended to amend their pending reassessment writ petitions in line with the Supreme Court ruling and sought exemption from re-verifying the amended pleadings.

Accepting the request, the court directed that amended petitions be served on the Revenue so it could file reply affidavits.

The praecipe was accordingly disposed of

For Petitioners: Advocate Rutuja Pawar with Advocate Pranaya Ramesh.

For Respondents: Advocate Subir Kumar with Advocate Vikas Khanchandani and Advocate Ashita Aggarwal (in WP No. 3261/2024, WP No. 4155/2024, and WP No. 362/2025); Advocate Subir Kumar with Advocate Ravi Subash Rattesar and Advocate Ashita Aggarwal (in WP No. 3269/2024).