Bombay High Court

SIDDHARTH SANJAY BOPALKARversusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 LATUR AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: ARUN R PEDNEKER VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act can be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer, not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on 29‑03‑2022.

Summary

The petitioner, Siddharth Sanjay Bopalkar, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The core issue was whether, after the faceless reassessment scheme introduced on 29‑03‑2022, the JAO retained jurisdiction to issue such notices, or whether only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) could do so. The Bombay High Court relied on its earlier decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. which held that post‑scheme, only the FAO may issue Section 148 notices, rejecting the Delhi High Court’s view of concurrent jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice and all related proceedings. It also granted the Revenue liberty to revive the petition if the Supreme Court overturns the Hexaware decision, otherwise the petition stands disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has authority to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the faceless reassessment scheme came into force on 29‑03‑2022.
Whether the Faceless Assessing Officer alone can issue such notice, or whether both JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 148

Subjects

Section 148
Income Tax Act
faceless reassessment
jurisdiction
writ petition
tax law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4794-DB

14 WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

14 WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2025

Siddharth Sanjay Bopalkar
VERSUS
Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Latur And Others

…
• Adv. Sneha More h/f. Adv. Rutuja N. Pawar for the Petitioner
• Adv. Dr. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
• Adv. S. S. Chintamani for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - Absent
…

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 02.02.2026

PER COURT:

1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned

notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short “JAO”).

2. This Court has consistently relied upon the decision of the

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2)(2024) 162

taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), and has held that the JAO has no

jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,

1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme being promulgated on

29.03.2022. Relying upon the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

ksk/ 1/3
14 WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2025

(Supra), this Court has allowed writ petitions in a large number of cases.

Accordingly, we also propose to pass a similar order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for respondents - Income Tax

Department has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the

case of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., GDR Finance and Leasing Private

Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer dated 28.10.2024, in WP(C) No.

1968/2023 and other connected matters, and submits that the Delhi

High Court has held that both the JAO as well as Faceless Assessing

Officer (for short “FAO”) would have concurrent jurisdiction to issue

notice under Section 148.

4. However, considering that this Court, by relying upon its

own judgment in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Supra) has

consistently held that notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act could

only be issued by FAO and not by JAO after 29.03.2022, we proceed to

pass the following order.

5. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned notice issued under

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and all other proceedings/orders

emanating therefrom.

ksk/ 2/3
14 WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2025

6. We, however, grant liberty to the Revenue to revive this writ

petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Supra)

is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue. We make it clear

that it will not be necessary for the Revenue to file a separate interim

application to seek revival of this petition, and the same can be done by

simply moving a praecipe before this Court. In the event the above

petition stands revived, there will be a stay to the implementation and

operation of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 until further

orders. It is needless to clarify that if the Hon’ble Supreme Court

dismisses the Special Leave Petition challenging the decision in

Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (Supra), there would be no question of any

revival.

7. We also make it clear that once the petition is revived and

restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits,

considering that several other issues are also raised challenging the

notice issued under Section 148.

8. The Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

ksk/ 3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…