High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Vinit Vishweshwar Kahalekar v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik-1 & Ors.
Writ Petition No. 3338 of 2025 ·
Section 148 notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 29.03.2022 quashed following Hexaware Technologies Ltd.; Delhi High Court view in T.K.S. Builders not followed.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner challenged a reassessment notice issued under section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the promulgation of the faceless reassessment scheme on 29.03.2022. The Revenue relied on the Delhi High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (WP(C) 1968/2023, decided 28.10.2024) to contend that the JAO and Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) exercise concurrent jurisdiction.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Division Bench held that the Bombay High Court has consistently followed its coordinate bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), holding that after 29.03.2022 a notice under section 148 can only be issued by the FAO under the faceless scheme and not by the JAO.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Setting aside the impugned section 148 notice and all consequential proceedings/orders, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition by moving a praecipe if Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court, clarifying that upon any revival implementation of the section 148 notice will remain stayed until further orders and other merits issues will remain open.
4. OUTCOME
In favour of the assessee (Vinit Vishweshwar Kahalekar); section 148 notice set aside with conditional praecipe revival liberty to Revenue.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Within Bombay High Court jurisdiction (including Aurangabad Bench), reliance by the Department on the Delhi High Court ruling in T.K.S. Builders does not displace the binding coordinate bench ratio in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. invalidating JAO-issued section 148 notices post-29.03.2022.
Source and verification
Reviewed from the complete 3-page official High Court judgment PDF (20260123_HCBM030098412025.pdf, SHA-256: 8bb7d15cbda385a6fca1a724860d26e1709f0b208a41cf54dfedeb778a0b59f4).
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: 8bb7d15cbda385a6fca1a724860d26e1709f0b208a41cf54dfedeb778a0b59f4
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Refers to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and allied statutory rules/circulars as applicable to the relevant assessment years.
No subsequent Supreme Court reversal or stay is recorded in the source judgment text.
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.