High Court of Judicature at Bombay · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Vikrant Chandrakant Patankar v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 3356 of 2025 ·
Quashing of reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of under the Faceless Reassessment Scheme promulgated under Section 151A on 29.03.2022, following Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom) (Writ Petition No. 3356 of 2025).
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
In Writ Petition No. 3356 of 2025, the petitioner challenged a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 29.03.2022 (the date of promulgation of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme under Section 151A), contending that the JAO lacked jurisdiction in view of the Bombay High Court Division Bench ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom).
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Division Bench rejected the Revenue's reliance on the contrary Delhi High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 167 taxmann.com 759 (Delhi), holding that as a co-ordinate bench of the Bombay High Court it is bound by Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom), which held that after 29.03.2022 the JAO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 outside the automated faceless allocation mechanism.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Allowing Writ Petition No. 3356 of 2025 in terms of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhijit Bhandari v. UOI, the High Court quashed the impugned Section 148 notice, while clarifying that if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd., the Revenue may revive the petition simply by moving a praecipe (in which event stay of the notice will operate until merits adjudication of all remaining grounds).
4. OUTCOME
Assessee - Writ petition allowed; Section 148 notice issued by JAO set aside subject to Supreme Court outcome in Hexaware Technologies.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
Within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, every post-29.03.2022 Section 148 notice issued by a local JAO rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer is quashed following Hexaware Technologies Ltd., subject to automatic praecipe revival if the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
Source and verification
3-page official High Court of Judicature at Bombay judgment PDF (20260123_HCBM030099692025.pdf, 54,059 bytes).
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: 7858d010f876ce62414b8ea7b4274085ea996a9ea553dd10b8f18927660fc289
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies Sections 148 and 151A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 (e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022). Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full 3-page primary judgment PDF text read and verified page-by-page. Follows Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom) and Abhijit Bhandari v. UOI (WP No. 18763/2024, Bombay HC).
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.