SUBHASH RATILAL MANIYAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2553/2025HC BombayHCBM03006247202502 February 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER,HON'BLE JUSTICE VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on March 29, 2022. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, particularly its own judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found this precedent binding. The Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. was noted but not followed, as the Bombay High Court maintained its established position. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision is overturned by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Subhash Ratilal Maniyar, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The challenge was based on the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022. The Bombay High Court had previously, in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), held that after this date, only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the jurisdiction to issue such notices, not the JAO. The Revenue, however, cited a Delhi High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. suggesting concurrent jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court was considering these arguments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of the scheme and Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice post-March 29, 2022, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: Both the JAO and the FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
16 WRIT PETITION NO. 2553 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 16 WRIT PETITION NO. 2553 OF 2025 Subhash Ratilal Maniyar VERSUS Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ahmednagar And Others … • Adv. Sneha More h/f. Adv. Rutuja N. Pawar for the Petitioner • Adv. Dr. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadka for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 • Adv. Alok Sharma for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 - Absent … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 02.02.2026 P E R C O U R T : 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 2026:BHC-AUG:4791-DB 16 WRIT PETITION NO. 2553 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

16 WRIT PETITION NO. 2553 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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →