VINIT VISHWESHWAR KAHALEKARversusTHE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX NASHIK 1 AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:3408-DB

                                                1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                               921 WRIT PETITION NO. 3338 OF 2025

                                     Vinit Vishweshwar Kahalekar
                                               VERSUS
                    The Principal Commissioner Income Tax Nashik 1 And Others
                                                 …..
                        Shri. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner
               Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
                                                 …..

                                             CORAM :         ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND
                                                             VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                             Dated       :   JANUARY 23, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               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 in large number. Accordingly, we also propose to pass the
                                2
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
                                                             3
                             simply by 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 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. )

                             GGP




Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/01/2026 11:40:52