GOLDEN DREAMS BUILDCON PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MUDIT VINOD SURANA vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/11981/2024HC BombayHCBM03042162202428 January 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 held 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 in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court found that the Delhi High Court's view on concurrent jurisdiction was contrary to the established precedent within the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by a praecipe, and if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Golden Dreams Buildcon Pvt Ltd, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that after the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022, only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the jurisdiction to issue such notices, not the JAO. The respondents, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Pune and another, argued, citing a Delhi High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., that both JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court had previously allowed numerous writ petitions on this basis.

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 Section 148 and the faceless assessment scheme). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued, relying on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice post-March 29, 2022, and the JAO lacks this power. Revenue's Contention: The respondents cited the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. to argue that both the JAO and the FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP 11981/24
WP (C) 1968/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
WP 11981/24 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 WRIT PETITION NO. 11981 OF 2024 GOLDEN DREAMS BUILDCON PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MUDIT VINOD SURANA VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PUNE AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chandak Raviraj R. Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar ... 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 in large number. Accordingly, we also propose to pass the similar order. 2026:BHC-AUG:3897-DB WP 11981/24 2 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 petition stands revived, there will be a stay to the implementation and WP 11981/24 3 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/

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →