The assessee challenged the notice u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148, along with the DRP’s directions u/s 144C(5) and reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13), on the ground that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional AO instead of the Faceless AO, contrary to the binding decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom)( HC) .

  The DRP wrongly held that Hexaware had been deviated from in J.D. Printers Pvt. Ltd v.ITO ( 2024] 166 taxmann.com 321 (Bom)(HC)   and further treated the defect as a mere procedural irregularity, relying instead on Gujarat High Court rulings. The High Court held that Hexaware squarely applied and issuance of notice by the Jurisdictional AO after 29.03.2022 was a jurisdictional defect, not a curable irregularity. It was further held that once a jurisdictional High Court has decided an issue, the DRP is bound to follow it and cannot rely upon non-jurisdictional High Court decisions to deny relief. The Court rejected Revenue’s objections of res judicata, alternate remedy before ITAT, and alleged suppression, and quashed the notices and reassessment proceedings. The Court also cautioned the tax authorities that continued disregard of binding jurisdictional precedents may invite contempt action, with following observation  “ We caution the authorities , that in the future , whether they like it or not , the orders of the jurisdictional High Court have to be followed . If in the future we find that orders of this court are not followed by the Income tax Authorities , we will not hesitate to haul up the concerned officers for contempt , amongst other things”  . ( W.P.(L) No. 3032 of 2026, dt. 09.02.2026)