J. D. PRINTERS PVT LTD THRU. DIRECTOR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15,1 MUMBAI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/1028/2026HC BombayHCBM01002616202627 January 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court, acknowledging that the issue was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), held that it was bound to follow that precedent. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court were to set aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The Court specified that revival could be done via a Praecipe, and if revived, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, J D Printers Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A primary ground for challenge was that the Notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Petitioner contended this was a fatal defect. The Revenue acknowledged that this issue was covered by a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), but noted that this decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court. The Revenue also confirmed there was no stay on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148 Notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law requires it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, constitutes a fatal defect and therefore the Notice must be quashed. They relied on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the issue was concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, they informed the Court that this decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court was likely to hear the matter soon. The Revenue also stated that there was no stay on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

sr.32-wp-1028-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2026 J D Printers Pvt. Ltd .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1) (2), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Ritika Agarwal a/w Adv. Yaminee Verma i/b M/s. Acelegal for the Petitioner. Adv. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondent-Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026 P. C.

1.

Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2.

The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various grounds. One of the grounds is that the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates that it has to be issued by the Faceless JANUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.01.29 11:10:03 +0530

sr.32-wp-1028-2026.doc

Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner.

3.

It is the Petitioner’s contention that this issue is squarely covered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)].

4.

On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated that though it is true that this issue is concluded by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the said decision has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is likely to take up the matter shortly. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra).

5.

Considering these facts, we do not propose to keep the matter pending in this Court. Once it is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) we are bound to follow it. JANUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.32-wp-1028-2026.doc

6.

We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings / orders emanating therefrom.

7.

We however grant liberty to the Revenue to revive the above 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 a revival of this Petition and the same can be done simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court. It is further ordered that in the event the above Petition is revived, there will be a stay to the operation and implementation 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.

8.

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. JANUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.32-wp-1028-2026.doc

9.

Rule is accordingly made absolute and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

10.

This order will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] JANUARY 27, 2026 Mansi shelke

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →