Bombay High Court

HARINATH SANGRAMAPPA KALPEversusINCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND OTHERS

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

Holding

A notice under section 148 can be issued only by a Faceless Assessing Officer, not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, after 29 March 2022.

Summary

The petitioner, Harinath Sangramappa Kalpe, challenged a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. which held that after the faceless reassessment scheme of 29 March 2022 only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue a section 148 notice, set aside the impugned notice. The Court rejected the Delhi High Court’s view that the JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction. It also granted the Revenue liberty to revive the petition if the Supreme Court overturns the Hexaware ruling, without filing a separate interim application. The petition was disposed of, with the notice and related proceedings annulled, pending any future revival.

Issues considered

Whether a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer can issue a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after the faceless reassessment scheme was introduced on 29 March 2022.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 148

Subjects

Section 148
Income Tax Act
Faceless reassessment
Jurisdiction
Notice
High Court
Tax law

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3915-DB

                                                                            WP 276/26
                                                   1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               935 WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2026

                                HARINATH SANGRAMAPPA KALPE
                                               VERSUS
                          INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Saloni Sankhe h/f. Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar
              Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. A.N. Sikchi a/w. Kalpesh Gaikwad
                       Advocate for Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr. Rajesh Mewara
                                                  ...

                                  CORAM        : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND
                                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                  Dated        : January 28, 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 (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 Jurisdictional

              Assessing Officer (JAO) has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section

              148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the faceless reassessment scheme

              being promulgated on 29th March 2022 and relying upon the judgment of

              Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) this court has allowed writ petitions
                                                               WP 276/26
                                     2

in large number. Accordingly, we also propose to pass the similar order.

3.    The learned counsel appearing for respondents/Income Tax

Department has relied upon the decision of 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) 1968/2023 and other

connected matters and submits that the Delhi High Court has held that

JAO as well as Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) both would have

concurrent jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148.

4.    However, considering that this court by relying upon the judgment

of this Court 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 29.3.2022, 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.

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 a revival of this petition and the same can be done

simply by moving a praecipe before this Court. In the event the above
                                                                WP 276/26
                                     3

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 SLP 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.     Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.



( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. )                ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )




ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…