Vaishali Sudhir Shirodkar vs the Principal Commissioner Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

Vaishali Sudhir Shirodkar vs the Principal Commissioner Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; conditional liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition by praecipe if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision, with an automatic stay on the notice upon revival.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the faceless reassessment scheme promulgated on 29.03.2022, or whether only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) could issue such notice.

Court's answer

After the faceless reassessment scheme promulgated on 29.03.2022, 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); the JAO therefore had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom are set aside.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted 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; no separate interim application is required, and revival can be sought by simply moving a praecipe before this Court.ratio¶6
In the event the petition stands revived, there will be a stay on the implementation and operation of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 until further orders.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), per Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, JJ. (judgment 'PER COURT'), disposed of a writ petition by Vaishali Sudhir Shirodkar challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Following the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), which the Court recorded it has consistently relied upon, the Court held that after the faceless reassessment scheme promulgated on 29.03.2022 a Section 148 notice can be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not by the JAO. The impugned notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court noted, without adopting, the contrary Delhi High Court view in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd., GDR Finance and Leasing Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer (WP(C) No. 1968/2023 and connected matters, dated 28.10.2024), urged by the Revenue's counsel, that JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the petition by merely moving a praecipe (no separate interim application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; upon revival, the notice stands stayed until further orders; if the SLP against Hexaware is dismissed, there is no revival; and a revived petition is to be decided on its own merits, several other issues having been raised.

910 WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

910 WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2025

Vaishali Sudhir Shirodkar

VERSUS

The Principal Commissioner Income Tax Nashik

Adv. Raviraj R. Chandak for the Petitioner

Adv. Alok M. Sharma for all the Respondents

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 14.01.2026

P E R C O U R T :

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short “ 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 JAO has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the faceless reassessment scheme being promulgated on 29.03.2022. Relying upon the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

1/3

ksk/

910 WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2025

(Supra), this Court has allowed writ petitions in a large number of cases. Accordingly, we also propose to pass a similar order.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents - Income Tax Department has relied upon the decision of the 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) No. 1968/2023 and other connected matters, and submits that the Delhi High Court has held that both the JAO as well as Faceless Assessing Officer (for short “ FAO ”) would have concurrent jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148.

However, considering that this Court, by relying upon its own judgment 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 29.03.2022, 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.

2/3

ksk/

910 WRIT PETITION NO. 1833 OF 2025

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 revival of this petition, and the same can be done by simply moving a praecipe before this Court. In the event the above 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 Special Leave Petition 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.

The Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]

3/3

ksk/