Bhangale Gold Private Limited through Its Director Aakash Bhagwat… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

Bhangale Gold Private Limited through Its Director Aakash Bhagwat… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned section 148 notice issued by the JAO set aside, together with all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom; writ petition disposed of in those terms, with liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition by praecipe if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Supreme Court (with an automatic stay on the notice upon revival, and no revival if the SLP against Hexaware is dismissed).

Issue for consideration

Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on 29 March 2022, or whether such a notice could be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO).

Court's answer

Relying on its Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., this Court held that after the faceless reassessment scheme promulgated on 29.3.2022, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act could only be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.

Key takeaways

Conditional directions: the Revenue may revive the petition simply by moving a praecipe (no separate interim application needed) if the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision is set aside by the Supreme Court; upon revival, implementation and operation of the impugned notice will remain stayed until further orders; there will be no revival if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware; a revived petition is to be decided on its own merits, several other issues challenging the s.148 notice having been raised.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP 15064/2025, Bombay HC Aurangabad bench; Pedneker & Patil-Jadhav, JJ., per curiam; decided 28 January 2026) challenging a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Consistent with its Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), the Court held that after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on 29.3.2022 a section 148 notice can be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not by the JAO, and accordingly set aside the impugned notice and all proceedings/orders emanating from it. The Court granted the Revenue liberty to revive the petition merely by moving a praecipe (without a separate interim application) if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with an automatic stay on implementation and operation of the notice upon revival; no revival arises if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware; any revived petition is to be decided afresh on its own merits. The respondents' reliance on the Delhi High Court decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (WP (C) 1968/2023, dated 28.10.2024) asserting concurrent JAO/FAO jurisdiction was noted but not adopted. Petition disposed of in the above terms.

2026:BHC-AUG:3913-DB

WP 15064/25

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

933 WRIT PETITION NO. 15064 OF 2025

BHANGALE GOLD PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AAKASH BHAGWAT BHANGALE VERSUS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Malpani Mohit Rajendra Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. A.N. Sikchi a/w. Kalpesh Gaikwad Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. R.D. Sanap

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

Dated : January 28, 2026

PER COURT :-

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned notice

under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO).

This Court has consistently relied upon the decision of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2)(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) and has held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the faceless reassessment scheme being promulgated on 29^th March 2022 and relying upon the judgment of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) this court has allowed writ petitions

WP 15064/25

2

in large number. Accordingly, we also propose to pass the similar order.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents/Income Tax Department has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer dated 28.10.2024 in WP (C) 1968/2023 and other connected matters and submits that the Delhi High Court has held that JAO as well as Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) both would have concurrent jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148.

However, considering that this court by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) has consistently held that notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act could only be issued by FAO and not by JAO after 29.3.2022, we proceed to pass the following order.

We accordingly set aside the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.

We however grant liberty to the Revenue to revive this writ petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (Supra) is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue. We make it clear that it

will not be necessary for the Revenue to file a separate Interim application to seek a revival of this petition and the same can be done simply by moving a praecipe before this Court. In the event the above

WP 15064/25

3

petition stands revived, there will be a stay to the implementation and operation of the impugned notice issued under section 148 until further orders. It is needless to clarify that if the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), there would be no question of any revival.

We also make it clear that once the petition is revived and restored, the same would have to be decided on its own merits, considering that several other issues are also raised challenging the notice issued under section 148.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

ssc/