HARINATH SANGRAMAPPA KALPE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 NANDED AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/306/2026HC BombayHCBM03050917202527 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 Bombay High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is set aside. The Court reiterated its consistent view, based on its own judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), that after the faceless reassessment scheme's promulgation on March 29, 2022, only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the jurisdiction to issue such notices, not the JAO. The reasoning is that the scheme mandates faceless assessment, thereby divesting the JAO of this specific power. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's reliance on a Delhi High Court decision suggesting concurrent jurisdiction but chose to follow its own precedent. All proceedings and orders emanating from the impugned notice were also set aside. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision is set aside by the Supreme Court.

What were the facts?

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 challenge was based on the argument that after the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022, the JAO lacked the jurisdiction to issue such notices. The Bombay High Court, in a consistent line of decisions, had previously held that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the authority to issue Section 148 notices post-March 29, 2022. The Revenue, however, cited a Delhi High Court decision suggesting concurrent jurisdiction for both JAO and FAO. The Bombay High Court was therefore considering the validity of the notice in light of these conflicting judicial pronouncements.

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 has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 after 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) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay). Revenue's Contention: Both the JAO and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) have concurrent jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer dated 28.10.2024.

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
306.2026WP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 WRIT PETITION NO. 306 OF 2026 Harinath Sangramappa Kalpe VERSUS Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Nanded And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Adv. Saloni Sankhe h/f Adv. Rutuja N. Pawar Advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 2 : Mr.Aditya Sikchi a/w Mr.Kalpesh Gaikwad … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 27.01.2026 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. sga/ 1/3 2026:BHC-AUG:3613-DB 306.2026WP (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. sga/

2/3

306.

2026WP

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.] sga/

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 →