Loading High Court cases…
585 orders · Page 11 of 12
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has directed the respective advocates to identify and list the writ petitions where the validity of Section 147-A is intended to be challenged. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. The petitioners are granted permission to amend their petitions to include the challenge to Section 147-A within one week. If amendments are carried out, these matters will be transferred to the Principal Seat for final hearing, as a similar group is scheduled for 31.08.2026. If amendments are not made before transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer. Petitioners are also given the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred. No decision has been made on the substantive validity of the section.
The High Court did not decide the substantive issues of the writ petitions on merits. Instead, the court addressed the procedural aspects. The court granted the request of the learned counsel for the respondents (revenue authorities) for time to file their reply. It was directed that if the reply is filed, the petitioners would have the liberty to file a rejoinder within four weeks thereafter. Furthermore, the court ordered that any interim relief that had been previously granted to the petitioners would continue until further orders. The matters were then adjourned to a future date for further proceedings. No specific legal principles or ratio decidendi were established as the case was adjourned for filing of replies.
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 Circle 15(1)(2), which held that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is empowered to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was 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. The petition was disposed of in these terms, with the understanding that if revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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, particularly the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found that the scheme mandates that such notices can only be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Court set aside the impugned notice and all consequential proceedings. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court, following its own consistent view in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 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. The Court found that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is empowered to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was set aside, along with all consequential proceedings and orders. 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. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, 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 court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), which held that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) could issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was set aside, along with all consequential proceedings and orders. However, 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. The court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, as other issues were also raised.
The Bombay High Court, following its own consistent view in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), 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. The Court noted that it had allowed a large number of writ petitions on this basis. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Tribunal decided 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 promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022. This decision is 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 only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possesses the authority to issue such notices post the scheme's implementation. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom 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 Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of with these terms.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, 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. The Court reiterated its consistent view, relying on its own previous decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), which held that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue such notices post-March 29, 2022. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The operative direction was to set aside the impugned notice and all consequential proceedings, with a provision for revival of the petition by the Revenue.
The High Court held that the impugned order was factually wrong and contrary to the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Court reasoned that Section 5A of the Income Tax Act creates a statutory fiction treating income as a single community income, and once the assessment is settled for one spouse, the dispute cannot survive independently for the other. The department cannot split a single community income dispute. The Court noted that the Revenue's own affidavit admitted that the Petitioner had filed an appeal against the penalty order. The Court interpreted the definition of 'dispute' under the Scheme broadly, including any appeal, and found that the Petitioner's pending appeal against the penalty order met the requirement of a pending dispute. The Court also found that since the Scheme was beneficial legislation, it should be interpreted to advance the cause of settlement. The Court agreed that due to Section 5A, a separate appeal against the assessment order was not needed. The Court accepted the Petitioner's explanation for delay due to COVID and rejected the objection that the Scheme had lapsed, as the application was filed when the Scheme was in force. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner's application under the Scheme and pass appropriate orders.
The Tribunal held that, consistent with the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, the JAO does not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 29, 2022. The Court found that only the FAO has such authority. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The Court did not decide on the merits of the other issues raised in the petition.
The Bombay High Court, at Aurangabad, 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 March 29, 2022, when the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated. The Court consistently followed its own prior decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2) (supra), which held that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue such notices post the scheme's implementation. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, and the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there would be no revival.
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 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. The Court found that only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possesses the authority to issue such notices post the scheme's implementation. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court overturns the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court clarified that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The revival can be sought by a praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there will be no revival.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, 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. The Court reiterated its consistent stance, based on the Division Bench judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was set aside, along with all consequential proceedings and orders. 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, allowing revival through a praecipe. If revived, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no revival, and the petition would remain disposed of. It was also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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 March 29, 2022, following the faceless reassessment scheme. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court 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. but prioritized its own precedent. 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 Supreme Court. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the petitioner, holding that 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 was promulgated on March 29, 2022. The Court reiterated its consistent view, as established in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), that post the scheme's implementation, such notices can only be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Court found the revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. unpersuasive in the context of its own established precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings 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, with a stay on the impugned notice until further orders in that event. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Bombay High Court, following its consistent view based on the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), 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. The Court found the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. contrary to its own established precedent. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings. 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 also noted that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Tribunal held that the Bombay High Court has consistently relied on its own decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), which established that the JAO has no 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. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was set aside. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. If revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, and the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. The Tribunal noted that if the Supreme Court upholds the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival.
The Tribunal decided 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 March 29, 2022, following the implementation of the faceless reassessment scheme. 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 Circle 15(1)(2). The Tribunal found that the Delhi High Court's view on concurrent jurisdiction was contrary to the established position of the Bombay High Court. Accordingly, the impugned notice 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 Supreme Court. The Tribunal also noted that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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.
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 is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in cases like Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court acknowledged the Revenue's reliance on a Delhi High Court judgment suggesting concurrent jurisdiction but chose to follow its own established precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the 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.
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.
The High Court held that the Notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a fatal defect. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax would not apply to central charges. The Court referred to another Division Bench judgment in Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, which clearly opined that even in cases of central charges and international taxation, the notice must be issued under the faceless procedure as notified under Section 144B read with Section 151A of the Act. The Court found that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by both the Hexaware and Abhin Shah judgments and were bound to follow them. Consequently, the impugned Notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings/orders were set aside. The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals), which would stand revived if the present order is challenged and set aside or if the Supreme Court decides against the assessee in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case.
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 Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found that the Delhi High Court's view on concurrent jurisdiction was contrary to its own established precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a fatal defect. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax would not apply to central charges. The Court relied on another Division Bench judgment in Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, which clearly opined that even in cases of central charges and international taxation, the notice must be issued under the faceless procedure by the Faceless Assessing Officer, as per the scheme notified under Section 144B read with Section 151A. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The petitioner undertook to withdraw an appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals) concerning the assessment order, with a condition that the appeal would stand revived if the present order is challenged and set aside, or if the Supreme Court decides the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. issue against the assessee.
The Bombay High Court, acknowledging that the issue was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), held that it was bound to follow that precedent. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The Court specified that revival could be done via a Praecipe, and if revived, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
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 promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on March 29, 2022. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court, as established in its own judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2)(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay). The Court acknowledged the contrary view from the Delhi High Court but prioritized its own precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
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. The Court reiterated its consistent stance, based on its own judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue such notices. The Court found the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. unpersuasive in light of its own binding precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court.
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 March 29, 2022, when the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated. 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 Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found that, following its own precedent, notices under Section 148 could only be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) after the specified date. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings 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. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The High Court has issued procedural directions to manage the Writ Petitions. It has directed that all matters challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act should be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are granted a period of one week to amend their petitions to include challenges to Section 147-A. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer. The court has also allowed petitioners to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. The matters are being organized for final hearing on 31.08.2026 at the Principal Seat. No decision on the merits of any specific case or the validity of Section 147-A has been made at this stage; the focus is on procedural consolidation and transfer.
The High Court has not decided the substantive issue of the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court for final hearing, as a similar group of cases is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted one week to amend their petitions to incorporate the challenge to Section 147-A. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The Court also permits petitioners to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, holding 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 March 29, 2022, following the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found the revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. unpersuasive in the context of the Bombay High Court's established precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the petitioner, holding 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 Circle 15(1)(2) and other subsequent judgments. The Court found that the Bombay High Court's precedent was binding. Consequently, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
The High Court has not decided the substantive issue of the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on a Supreme Court judgment. The Court has directed that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court for final hearing, as a similar group of cases is scheduled for hearing on 31.08.2026. Petitioners are granted one week to amend their petitions to incorporate the challenge to Section 147-A. If amendments are not carried out before transfer, they can be done within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The Court also permits petitioners to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.
The Tribunal decided 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 Circle 15(1)(2). The Court found that, following this precedent, it had allowed numerous writ petitions challenging notices issued by JAOs. Therefore, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was set aside, along with all consequential proceedings and orders. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
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 set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that if the petition is revived, it will be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and proceedings, with a conditional liberty to revive.
The Bombay High Court, following its consistent view established in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 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 came into effect on March 29, 2022. The Court found 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 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 such an event, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. The Court clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there would be no revival, and the petition would stand disposed of. Any revival would require the petition to be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court, following its consistent view in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle, 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. The court found that only a 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 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. The court also noted that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., there would be no revival. Any revived petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'E', staying the effect, execution, implementation, and further steps taken in pursuance to the impugned notice dated 30.03.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Court relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Writ Petition No.1778/2023 [Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle and Others] and the Apex Court's observations in Civil Appeal No.___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8682/2024 [The Income Tax Officer and Another Vs. Shri Sai Kumar Mateti]). The Apex Court's ruling indicated that reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 would be time-barred in light of the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. The matter was adjourned for further hearing.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the Court has issued procedural directions based on the Supreme Court's judgment. The primary direction is that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. This is to facilitate their hearing alongside similar matters already scheduled for 31.08.2026. The Court has granted petitioners one week to amend their petitions to explicitly challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not made prior to transfer, they can be completed within one week after the transfer. The Court also noted that petitioners have the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred to the Principal Seat. No decision has been made on the validity of the section itself.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court is acting in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 10, 2026. The court has directed that all writ petitions where the validity of Section 147-A is intended to be challenged should be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court for final hearing, as a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2026. The petitioners are granted one week to amend their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not made prior to the transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court also noted that petitioners have the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court is acting in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 10, 2026. The court has directed that all writ petitions where the validity of Section 147-A is intended to be challenged should be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court for final hearing, as a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2026. The petitioners are granted one week to amend their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not made prior to the transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court also noted that petitioners have the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.
The High Court has not decided the merits of the challenge to Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, the court is acting in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 10, 2026. The court has directed that all writ petitions where the validity of Section 147-A is intended to be challenged should be identified by the respective advocates. These identified matters are to be transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court for final hearing, as a similar group of matters is scheduled for hearing on August 31, 2026. The petitioners are granted one week to amend their petitions to specifically challenge Section 147-A. If amendments are not made prior to the transfer, they can be carried out within one week after the transfer to the Principal Seat. The court also noted that petitioners have the option to file a Pursis if they do not wish for their matters to be transferred.
The Tribunal decided in favor of the petitioner, adhering to its consistent view based on the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court held that after March 29, 2022, the JAO does not possess the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act; this power is exclusively vested with the FAO. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO and all consequential proceedings were set aside. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court overturns the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and proceedings, with liberty to revive.
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 promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme 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 reasoned that the scheme mandates that such notices can only be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
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 March 29, 2022, following the faceless reassessment scheme. This decision is based on the consistent view of the Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi High Court's differing view but chose to follow its own precedent. Consequently, the impugned notice 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 Supreme Court. The Court also noted that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The Bombay High Court, following its own consistent precedent established in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), 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 March 29, 2022, when the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated. The Court reiterated that only a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is empowered to issue such notices. Consequently, the impugned notice issued by the JAO was set aside, along with all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is overturned by the Supreme Court. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and proceedings, with the petition being disposed of with liberty to revive.
The High Court considered the petitioner's submission that there were mistakes in the Writ Petition and that it would be better to withdraw it with liberty to file afresh. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition. No order was made as to costs. The Court did not decide any substantive issues related to the income tax assessment.
The Tribunal held that the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid on the ground that it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer. The Tribunal was bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], as the present case was squarely covered by it. The Tribunal set aside the impugned Notice and all consequential proceedings. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. In the event of revival, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the petition would not be revived. The Tribunal clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.
The High Court considered the statement made by the learned advocate for the Petitioner regarding mistakes in the Writ Petition and the request to withdraw it with liberty to file afresh. The Court found this course of action to be appropriate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition as prayed. No order as to costs was made. The operative direction is the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.