ARUN LAXMANRAO DUBE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 5 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/13156/2024HC BombayHCBM03045120202412 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN R. PEDNEKER,HON'BLE JUSTICE VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court 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 is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, as established in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court acknowledged the contrary view from the Delhi High Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and others but chose to follow its own precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court, and in that event, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court upholds the Hexaware decision, the petition will not be revived. Any revival would necessitate a decision on the merits of the other issues raised in the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Arun Laxmanrao Dube, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has consistently followed its prior decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), holding 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 Revenue, however, cited a Delhi High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Income Tax Officer (dated October 28, 2024) suggesting concurrent jurisdiction for both JAO and FAO. The Court noted the conflicting views but chose to adhere to its own precedent.

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 introduction of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of the faceless assessment scheme and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), that the JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue a Section 148 notice post-March 29, 2022, and only the FAO can do so. Revenue's Contention: The respondents/Income Tax Department, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, contended that both the JAO and the FAO have 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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 5 WRIT PETITION NO. 13156 OF 2024 Arun Laxmanrao Dube ..Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5) and Others ..Respondents ….. Mr. Pavan P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Alok M. Sharma - Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 ….. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Dated : JANUARY 12, 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 2026:BHC-AUG:1047-DB

2 of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), this court has allowed writ petitions in large number. Accordingly, we also propose to pass the 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

3 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 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: 13/01/2026 14:47:59

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →