Rekha Vasant Shah vs. Income tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

PDF · subscribers
WP/8088/2025HC BombayHCBM03026705202509 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, consistent with its own prior judgments, particularly in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme came into effect on March 29, 2022. The Court reiterated that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is empowered to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Court, however, granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. on this issue. The revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, and upon revival, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no question of revival. Any revived petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rekha Vasant Shah, 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 premise that the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue such a notice after the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022. The Bombay High Court had previously, in numerous cases, including Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), held that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has the authority to issue Section 148 notices post the scheme's implementation, not the JAO. The Revenue, however, cited a Delhi High Court decision suggesting concurrent jurisdiction for both JAO and FAO.

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 implementation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022, or if such jurisdiction vests solely with the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law, turning on Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the JAO has no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice post-March 29, 2022, relying on the Bombay High Court's consistent view in cases like Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, which held that both the JAO and the FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notices.

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 8088/25
WP (C) 1968/2023

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

WP 8088/25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 WRIT PETITION NO. 8088 OF 2025 REKHA VASANT SHAH VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Rutuja Pawar a/w. Mr. Pranaya Muthathyan a/w. Ms. Hetal Laghave a/w. Ms. Sneha More Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mrs. Kalpalata Patil-Bharaswadkar Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. R.B. Bagul … CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Dated : January 09, 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:988-DB

WP 8088/25 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 8088/25 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 →