ZENTEST SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 AND ANR

                                                                              14.WP.9957.22.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 9957 OF 2022

                        Zentest Software Pvt Ltd,
                        Pune                                                    .. Petitioner

                                 Versus

                        Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
                        Pune & Ors                                              .. Respondents

                             Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Atul Jasani, Advocates for the Petitioner.

                             Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents/
                             Revenue.



          Digitally signed
                                      CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
ANJALI by ANJALI
       TUSHAR
TUSHAR ASWALE
       Date:
ASWALE 2026.08.25
          12:34:06 +0530
                                                    FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
                                      DATE:         AUGUST 24, 2026

                        P. C.

                        1.            The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued

                        under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Year in

                        question is Assessment Year 2015-16.



                        2.            One of the main grounds on which the above Notice is challenged

                        is that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the

                        impugned Notice but it was only the Faceless Assessing Officer who could

                        issue the same. In support of this contention, the Petitioner Assessee relied
                                                        Page 1 of 5
                                                      AUGUST 24, 2026
                        Aswale
                                                       14.WP.9957.22.doc



upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies

Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2),

Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 decided on 3 rd

May 2024).



3.          Following the aforesaid decision in Hexaware Technologies

Limited (Supra), the present Writ Petition came to be allowed and the

impugned Notice issued under Section 148 was set aside. Being aggrieved by

the decision passed by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited

(Supra) as well as in a batch of several other Petitions which followed the

decision in Hexaware, the Revenue preferred Appeals before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by separate Orders dated 10 th

April 2026, 4th May 2026, 10th May, 2026, 15th May 2026, 15th May 2026 and

17th July 2026 respectively, passed in a batch of matters, remanded the

matters back to the respective High Courts for consideration of the issues

afresh, especially keeping in mind the amendment introduced by the

Legislature, namely the insertion of Section 147A w.e.f. 1 st April 2026 having

a retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that all

contentions raised before the Supreme Court as well as any other grounds to

quash the impugned notices could be urged before the High Courts and the

Supreme Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

                              Page 2 of 5
                            AUGUST 24, 2026
Aswale
                                                             14.WP.9957.22.doc



controversy. This is how the present Writ Petition has come up once again

before us.



4.           We note that in the aforesaid batch of Appeals disposed of by the

Supreme Court, vide its Order dated 4 th May 2026, the Supreme Court, inter

alia, recorded a concession on the part of the learned Additional Solicitor

General that in Assessment cases pertaining to A.Y.2015-16, the Notice issued

on or after 1st April 2021, or proposed to be issued, for re-assessment, would

stand barred by time in light of the view taken by the Supreme Court in

Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024 SCC OnLine SC

2693). For the sake of convenience, the Order passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court on 4th May 2026 reads as under:

                                  “ORDER

         1. Delay condoned.

         2. Leave granted.

         3. This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly
         different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a
         three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya
         Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated
         10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and
         connected matters.

         4. The instant cases were segregated through the above-
         mentioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to
         Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N.
         Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India,
         representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining
         to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for
                                 Page 3 of 5
                               AUGUST 24, 2026
Aswale
                                                               14.WP.9957.22.doc



         reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view
         taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal,
         2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693.

         5. There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to
         pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices
         are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession
         on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of
         Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned
         Additional Solicitor General of India.

         6. However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an
         assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees
         shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been
         permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered
         accordingly.

         7. Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order
         dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set
         aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the
         matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of
         the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly
         determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015-
         16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall
         be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to
         declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev
         Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not
         pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then all the issues shall be
         resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil
         Appeal No. 4716 of 2026.

         8. Pending application(s), if any, including application(s) for
         substitution and impleadment/intervention stand closed.”


5.          As can be seen from this Order, the Supreme Court has clearly

opined that if it is found that the matter pertains to A.Y.2015-16, no further

adjudicatory exercise is required to be undertaken by the High Court, except

to declare the Notice as being time barred in light of Rajeev Bansal

(Supra). In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that the
                                 Page 4 of 5
                               AUGUST 24, 2026
Aswale
                                                       14.WP.9957.22.doc



impugned Notice under Section 148 is issued on or after 1 st April 2021 and

pertains to A.Y.2015-16. In these circumstances, the impugned Notice issued

under Section 148 is clearly time barred as per the concession made by the

learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra). Accordingly, the Writ Petition succeeds

and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is set aside. Consequently,

any action taken or emanating from the said Notice is also hereby quashed

and set aside.



6.             Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ

Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order

as to costs.



7.             This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax

or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.




[FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.]                 [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]




                                Page 5 of 5
                              AUGUST 24, 2026
Aswale