ROYAL BITUMEN PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE- 8(1)1- MUMBAI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the impugned notice under Section 148A(b), the order under Section 148A(d), and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and bad in law. The Court reasoned that in view of the faceless scheme notified under Section 151A of the Act, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) ceased to have jurisdiction to issue any notice under Section 148A(b) and to take further actions under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act outside the faceless assessment regime. This conclusion was squarely covered by the Court's prior decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited. The petition was allowed on this short ground. The Court quashed and set aside the notices dated April 12, 2024 (under Section 148), April 12, 2024 (under Section 148A(d)), and March 21, 2024 (under Section 148A(b)).
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Royal Bitumen Private Limited, Mumbai, filed a writ petition challenging notices and an order issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned actions were dated March 21, 2024, and April 12, 2024. The petitioner contended that these actions were invalid as they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme notified under Section 151A of the Act. The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others, did not dispute this position. The High Court considered the matter based on these submissions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Act, are invalid and bad in law for having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) when the faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A of the Act was in effect? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notices and order were issued by the JAO, which is impermissible under the faceless assessment scheme notified under Section 151A of the Act. They relied on the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors.1. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the position that the JAO lacked the authority to issue such notices outside the faceless assessment scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cited by 25 judgments on BharatTax
See all citing judgments →Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.
- Sp Chidambaram, Kanchipuram v. ITO, Ward 1, KanchipuramChennai · 2026-01-29
- Sun Power Life Battery Centre, Kovilpatti v. ITO Ward 2, TuticorinChennai · 2026-01-27
- Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder, Coimbatore v. ITO Non Corp Ward 1(1), CoimbatoreChennai · 2026-01-27
- Vasu Saravanan, Chennai v. ITO, Non Corp Ward 1(6), ChennaiChennai · 2026-01-27
- Jaya Chandra Rajan, Tirunelveli v. ITO, Ward 1 Tirunelvel, TirunelvelChennai · 2026-01-27
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents, its servants, subordinates, agents and successors in office; (c) To forthwith withdraw and/or cancel (i) Notice under section 148 of the Act dated April 12, 2024 (Ex-A); (ii) Order dated April 12, 2024, passed under section 148A (d) of the Act (Ex-B); (iii) Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated March 21,2024 (Ex-C); (d) To forthwith forbear from taking any steps whatsoever pursuant to or in implementation of (i) Notice under section 148 of the Act dated April 12, 2024 (Ex-A); (ii) Order dated April 12, 2024, passed under section 148A (d) of the Act (Ex-B); (iii) Notice under section 148A(b) the Act dated March 21,2024 (Ex-C); (e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of (i) Notice under section 148 of the Act dated April 12, 2024 (Ex- A); (ii) Order dated April 12, 2024, passed under section 148A (d) of the Act (Ex-B); (iii) Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated March 21,2024 (Ex-C).”
At the outset, Dr. Shivraman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned notice as issued to the petitioner under Section 148A(b) of the Act as also the consequent order under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act, have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short, “JAO”). It is submitted that in view of the faceless scheme notified under under Section 08 July, 2024 Uploaded on - 13/07/2024 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 00:30:40
21-WPL 18296-24.DOC 151A of the Act by the Central Government vide notification dated 29 March 2022, the JAO did not have an authority to issue the impugned notices, as necessarily, such exercise if at all was required to be undertaken under the faceless assessment scheme. It is his submission that such issue fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors.1 in which in such context the Court had considered the said issue by framing the following question:- “(4) Whether the impugned notice dated 27th August 2022 is invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same was not in accordance with Section 151A of the Act?
The Division Bench examining the provisions of Section 151A of the Act as also the faceless regime which was brought into effect by the Central Government by the notification dated 29 March 2022 came to the conclusion that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would cease to have jurisdiction to issue any notice under Section 148A(b) and to take further actions under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act, outside the faceless assessment. Learned counsel for the respondents would not dispute this position. Thus, the challenge as raised by the petitioner on such ground stands squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom)(HC) 08 July, 2024 Uploaded on - 13/07/2024 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 00:30:40
21-WPL 18296-24.DOC
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the clear opinion that the petition would be required to be allowed on this short ground without delving on any other contention/ground raised by the petitioner in the present proceedings. Hence, the following order:- ORDER i. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads thus:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside (i) Notice under section 148 of the Act dated April 12,2024 (Ex-A); (ii) Order dated April 12, 2024, passed under section 148A (d) of the Act (Ex-B); (iii) Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated March 21, 2024 (Ex-C).” ii. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) 08 July, 2024 Uploaded on - 13/07/2024 Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 00:30:40 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026