The Bombay High Court has directed the restoration of over a hundred writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Court issued comprehensive procedural directions following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. v. Tej Partap Singh, which altered the legal landscape governing these matters.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad passed the order in Chirag Bapulal Jain v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1) & Ors. along with a large batch of connected petitions spanning matters filed between 2022 and 2026.
The batch of petitions concerns challenges to reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, a provision empowering the Income Tax Department to reopen completed assessments under specified circumstances.
Buy Now: INCOME TAX E-COMPILATION – JUNE 2026
Many of these petitions had earlier been disposed of by the Bombay High Court following its judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., with liberty granted to the Revenue to seek revival if the Supreme Court took a different view. Subsequently, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tej Partap Singh necessitated reconsideration of those disposed matters, leading both the Revenue and taxpayers to seek restoration before the High Court.
The Bench referred to an earlier judgment dated January 5, 2026 in Mahesh Kantilal Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, where the Court had quashed reassessment notices while expressly permitting the Revenue to revive the petitions if the Supreme Court overturned the legal position adopted in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.
The earlier judgment had clarified that the impugned Section 148 notices stood quashed; the Revenue could revive the writ petitions merely by filing a praecipe if the Supreme Court reversed the legal position; interim protection would continue upon revival; and the restored petitions would ultimately be decided independently on all issues raised.
After hearing the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Revenue along with counsel representing numerous petitioners, the Division Bench noted that all parties were ad idem that the matters should now be restored in light of the Supreme Court’s April 10, 2026 judgment and the earlier orders of the Bombay High Court.
The department also produced a compilation containing a detailed note identifying the matters requiring restoration, which the Court marked for identification.
By consent of all parties, the High Court laid down a structured mechanism for revival of the litigation.
The Court directed the Income Tax Department to issue email notices to all affected assessees whose petitions are to be revived, using the email addresses available in departmental records. These notices must be served on or before July 15, 2026.
Simultaneously, the Registry has been directed to publish a notice listing all disposed cases requiring restoration so that affected assessees are informed to appear before the Court. The Registry must also publish this notice by July 15, 2026.
The Court fixed July 20, 2026 as the date on which all these matters will be listed for restoration.
To simplify the process, the Bench observed that once the petitions are restored, it would not insist upon formal amendment applications or draft amendments.
Instead, the Court proposed fixing a mutually convenient schedule for carrying out amendments consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling. After such amendments are completed, the Revenue would be given liberty to file affidavits responding to the amended pleadings. The Court further indicated that, wherever appropriate, a common response filed in the lead matter could be treated as applicable to the connected petitions.
Thereafter, dates would be fixed for commencement of final oral arguments.
The Bench also took note of an administrative order dated June 26, 2026 and the Registry’s notice dated June 29, 2026 providing that similar reassessment matters pending before the Nagpur, Aurangabad, Kolhapur and Goa Benches would be transferred and heard together at the Principal Seat in Mumbai.
Accordingly, the Court directed that all such matters be listed before the Principal Seat on July 20, 2026, and ordered publication of its directions across all benches to ensure that litigants are informed.
The Division Bench clarified that wherever interim relief had earlier been granted by coordinate benches, such interim orders would continue to operate in the light of the Supreme Court’s observations. The protection would also extend to similarly situated and freshly filed petitions.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
