Bombay High Court Sets Aside Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16 — Indian Express Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT
Case Background and Overview
Case: Indian Express Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant ruling in a writ petition challenging a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice, holding it to be squarely barred by limitation. The assessment year at issue was AY 2015-16, and the notice had been issued on or after 1 April 2021.
This judgment forms part of a broader chain of litigation that traces back to the Bombay High Court's earlier ruling in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 decided on 3rd May 2024), and ultimately draws its final direction from the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693.
Original Challenge and the Hexaware Precedent
Grounds Raised Before the High Court
The assessee — Indian Express Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd. — moved the Bombay High Court, primarily contending that the notice issued under Section 148 was jurisdictionally infirm. The specific argument advanced was that a jurisdictional Assessing Officer lacked the competence to issue such a notice, and that only a Faceless Assessing Officer was empowered to do so under the applicable statutory framework.
For this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2023 decided on 3rd May 2024), which had ruled in favour of assessees on the question of faceless assessment jurisdiction.
Initial Decision in Favour of the Assessee
Following the ratio laid down in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra), the Bombay High Court initially allowed the writ petition and set aside the Section 148 notice. This outcome was consistent with the approach adopted in a large batch of similar matters that had followed the Hexaware decision.
Revenue's Appeal and Supreme Court Intervention
Challenge Before the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the Bombay High Court's ruling in Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) and the connected batch of petitions decided on its basis, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Supreme Court. These appeals were heard as a consolidated batch, given their common legal underpinning.
Supreme Court's Remand Orders
The Supreme Court passed a series of orders — dated 10 April 2026, 4 May 2026, 10 May 2026, and 15 May 2026 — disposing of this batch of appeals. Through these orders, the Supreme Court remanded all matters back to their respective High Courts for fresh consideration, with specific emphasis on a legislative development that had occurred in the interim.