SUNDER CRANES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSIST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/10921/2025HC BombayHCBM01042672202511 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Following this precedent, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court reasoned that as they are bound to follow the decision of a Division Bench of their own Court, they could not keep the matter pending. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunder Cranes Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary ground for challenge was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued this was a fatal defect. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 & Ors. The High Court made the rule returnable forthwith and heard the matter finally.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: 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 a Faceless Assessing Officer, constitutes a fatal defect rendering the notice liable to be quashed. They relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision but stated that this decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with the matter likely to be taken up shortly. They conceded 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.27-wp-10921-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10921 OF 2025 Sunder Cranes Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Tanzil Padvekar a/w Adv. Tejal P. Kharkar for the Petitioner. Adv. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 11, 2025 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 Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner. Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 11, 2025 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.08.16 12:27:49 +0530

sr.27-wp-10921-2025.doc

3.

It is the Petitioners’ 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 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. 6. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 11, 2025 Mansi shelke

sr.27-wp-10921-2025.doc

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 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. 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 digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ 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.] Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 11, 2025 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 →