Bhavik Bhupendra Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2026WP/12482/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; reassessment; Assessment Year 2015-16; time-barred reassessment notice; limitation; Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024 SCC Online SC 2693) concession; Hexaware Technologies Limited remand; insertion of Section 147-A w.e.f. 1st April 2026 retrospective; revival of writ petition; notice quashed and set aside; rule made absolute; Bombay High Court writ petition allowed; Income Tax Act 1961; jurisdictional vs faceless assessing officer ground raised.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Notice issued under Section 148 set aside; any action taken or emanating from the said Notice quashed and set aside; Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of in those terms; no order as to costs. ¶¶44

Bhavik Bhupendra Shah vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the Writ Petition, earlier allowed following Hexaware and overtaken by the Supreme Court's remand of that decision, should be revived. +2 more

¶¶43

Court's answer

The Petitioner's objections to the revival of the Writ Petition are wholly irrelevant for the present matter.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition stands revived.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The impugned Notice under Section 148, issued on or after 1st April 2021 and pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, is clearly time-barred, as conceded by the learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal (Supra).ratio¶¶43
The Writ Petition succeeds; the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is set aside, and any action taken or emanating from the said Notice is quashed and set aside.ratio¶¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.) allowed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petition had earlier been allowed following Hexaware Technologies Limited (Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023, decided 3rd May 2024), with liberty to the Revenue to revive it if Hexaware was set aside by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court having remanded the Hexaware issue to the High Court for de novo consideration in view of the insertion of Section 147-A w.e.f. 1st April 2026 (retrospective), and having recorded in its order dated 4th May 2026 (in a batch of 103 appeals) the learned Additional Solicitor General's concession that reassessment notices pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 would stand barred by time in light of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024 SCC Online SC 2693), the Court revived the petition, rejected the Petitioner's objections to revival, and held the impugned notice — admittedly issued on or after 1st April 2021 and pertaining to AY 2015-16 — clearly time-barred. The notice was set aside and all action emanating from it quashed; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs. The ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer had jurisdiction was noted as raised but was not the basis of the decision.

¶1

MAMTA AMAR KALE Digitally signed byMAMTA AMAR KALEDate: 2026.06.1712:48:08 +0530

¶2

31 wp12482-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 12482 OF 2025

¶5

Bhavik Bhupendra Shah .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Madhur Agrawal a/w. Mr Atul Jasani, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w. Mr Suresh Kabra, for the Respondents / Revenue.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JUNE 15, 2026

¶11

P. C.

¶12

The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued

¶13

under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment Year in question is Assessment Year 2015-16.

¶14

One of the many grounds on which the above Notice is challenged is that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned Notice but it was the Faceless Assessing Officer who had Page 1 of 6 JUNE 15, 2026

¶15

Mamta Kale

¶16

31 wp12482-2025.doc

¶17

to issue the same. In support of this contention, the Petitioner Assessee relied upon the Judgement of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 decided on 3^rd May 2024).

¶18

Following the aforesaid decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) , the present Writ Petition came to be allowed and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 was set aside. Since the challenge to Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in order not to burden the Revenue to approach the Supreme Court in every matter, we had, while disposing of the Writ Petition, granted an opportunity to the Revenue to revive the above Writ Petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue.

¶19

It now transpires that the issue of Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) has been remanded back to the High Court for de novo consideration, especially taking into account the amendment introduced by the Legislature, namely the insertion of Section 147-A, w.e.f. 1^st April 2026, having retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also clarified that all the contentions raised before the Supreme Court as well as any other grounds

¶20

Page 2 of 6 JUNE 15, 2026

¶21

Mamta Kale

¶22

31 wp12482-2025.doc

¶23

to quash the impugned notices could be urged before the High Court and the Supreme Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.

¶24

In all the matters that were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there was a batch of Appeals which pertained to Assessment Year 2015-16. In its order dated 4^th May 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court interalia recorded a concession on the part of the learned Additional Solicitor General that in Assessment cases pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, the Notice issued or proposed to be issued for re-assessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, (2024 SCC Online SC 2693) . For the sake of convenience, the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4^th May 2026 reads as under :

¶25

“ORDER

¶26

1. Delay condoned.

¶27

Leave granted.

¶28

This batch of civil appeals comprising 103 cases is slightly different than those cases which came to be disposed of by a three Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us (Surya Kant, CJI. and Joymalya Bagchi, J.), vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026 and connected matters.

¶29

The instant cases were segregated through the abovementioned order on the premise that they may be pertaining to

¶30

Page 3 of 6 JUNE 15, 2026

¶31

Mamta Kale

¶32

31 wp12482-2025.doc

¶33

Assessment Year 2015-16. It is fairly conceded by Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the Revenue, that in the assessment cases pertaining to the year 2015-16, the notices issued/proposed to be issued for reassessment would stand barred by time in light of the view taken by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693.

¶34

There is no quarrel that if the instant cases are found to pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then the impugned notices are liable to be struck down outrightly in terms of the concession on behalf of the Department recorded in paragraph 19 (f) of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and reiterated before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

¶35

However, if it is found that these cases pertain to an assessment year other than 2015-16, the respondent-assessees shall be entitled to raise all the contentions that have been permitted by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026. Ordered accordingly.

¶36

Consequently, keeping in mind the reasons set out in order dated 10.04.2026, the impugned judgment in each appeal is set aside and the instant appeals are disposed of by remitting the matters to the jurisdictional High Courts for redetermination of the issues. As observed above, the High Courts shall firstly determine whether the matters pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16. If it is found to be so, no further adjudicatory exercise shall be required to be undertaken by the High Court, except to declare the notices as being time-barred in light of Rajeev Bansal (supra). However, if it is found that the case does not pertain to Assessment Year 2015-16, then all the issues shall be resolved in terms of the order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4716 of 2026.

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, including application(s) for substitution and impleadment/intervention stand closed.”

¶38

As far as the revival of this Petition is concerned, though the

¶39

learned Counsel for the Petitioner had certain objections to the revival, we

¶40

Page 4 of 6 JUNE 15, 2026

¶41

Mamta Kale

¶42

31 wp12482-2025.doc

¶43

find that the said objections are wholly irrelevant for the present matter. As can be seen from the order of 4^th May 2026, if it is found that the matter pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16, no further adjudicatory exercise is required to be taken by the High Court, except to declare the Notice as being time barred in light of the concession made by the Revenue in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) . In the facts of the present case, it is an admitted fact that the impugned Notice under Section 148 is issued on or after 1^st April 2021 and pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. In these circumstances, we direct that the above Writ Petition stands revived. In the light of the fact that the impunged Notice is issued on or after 1^st April 2021 and pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16, we hold that the same is clearly time barred as conceded by the Learned Additional Solicitor General before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (Supra) . Accordingly, the Writ Petition succeeds and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is set aside. Consequently, any action taken or emanating from the said Notice is also hereby quashed and set aside.

¶44

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Page 5 of 6 JUNE 15, 2026

¶46

Mamta Kale

¶47

31 wp12482-2025.doc

¶48

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶49

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶50

Page 6 of 6 JUNE 15, 2026

¶51

Mamta Kale

Bhavik Bhupendra Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavik Bhupendra Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aruna Rathi vs Sanjeev Sat Prakash Goyal and 10 Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Customs General vs Suswashis Clearing and Forwarding Agency

Commissioner of Customs General vs Sky Shipping

Swapnil Satish Saraf vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 and Ors.

Bhavik Buildcon Private Limited Ay 2020 21 vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Nashik and Ors.

Majestic Prime Realtors LLP vs Union of India