Nisar Mohibullah Khan vs the Principal Commissioner Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

Nisar Mohibullah Khan vs the Principal Commissioner Income Tax and… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Section 148 notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition by praecipe if Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court, with a stay on the notice's implementation upon revival.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after the faceless reassessment scheme was promulgated on 29 March 2022.

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 if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) is set aside by the Supreme Court; no separate interim application is required and revival can be sought simply by moving a praecipe before this Court.ratio¶21
If the petition stands revived, implementation and operation of the impugned Section 148 notice will stand stayed until further orders; if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), there would be no question of any revival.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), per Arun R. Pedneker and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, JJ. (PER COURT), disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Continuing its consistent reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), the Court held that after the faceless reassessment scheme promulgated on 29.03.2022 a Section 148 notice could be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and not by the JAO, and set aside the impugned notice together with all proceedings/orders emanating from it. The Court noted the Delhi High Court's contrary view in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (concurrent JAO/FAO jurisdiction) as relied upon by the Department's counsel but proceeded on its own precedent. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the petition by a mere praecipe (without a separate interim application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware, in which event implementation and operation of the notice would stand stayed until further orders; no revival arises if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP. On revival, the petition would be decided afresh on its own merits, several other issues having been raised against the notice.

2026:BHC-AUG:1053-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

8 WRIT PETITION NO. 6347 OF 2025

Nisar Mohibullah Khan

.. Petitioner

Versus

The Principal Commissioner Income Tax And Others .. Respondents

Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Dated : JANUARY 12, 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

2

of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), this court has allowed writ petitions 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

3

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 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. )

GGP

Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/01/2026 14:52:48