SHAKIL SHAKUR BIJAPURE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/11094/2025HC BombayHCBM07044037202518 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK,HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its own decision in IPG advertising and business services LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, made the rule absolute and set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148A and all consequential proceedings. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax is set aside by the Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a praecipe and that if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, 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. The ratio decidendi is that a notice issued contrary to the mandatory procedure of faceless assessment is void, but liberty can be granted to the Revenue to revive proceedings if the precedent is overturned by a higher court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shakil Shakur Bijapure, challenged a notice dated June 28, 2025, issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a jurisdictional assessing officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer, constituting 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, but stated that this decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court, though no stay was in place. The High Court referred to its earlier decision in IPG advertising and business services LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 28, 2025, issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22 is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was issued by a jurisdictional assessing officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notice by a jurisdictional assessing officer, when the law requires it to be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect rendering the notice invalid. The petitioner relied on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue conceded that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision but highlighted that this decision was under challenge before the Supreme Court. The Revenue stated that the Supreme Court was likely to hear the matter soon and that there was no stay on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

21-WP-11094-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11094 OF 2025 Shakil Shakur Bijapure … Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ors. … Respondents

—————— Mr. Ranjit Basu, Omkar Wangikar & Priya i/by Ashish Agarkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Smita Thakur (Thr VC) for the Respondents. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : September 18, 2025. P. C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the Petition. 3. The Petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 28th June, 2025 issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 by the Respondent No. 1-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara. 4. It is submitted that the controversy in the present case is squarely Shubham Talle 1 of

21-WP-11094-2025.doc 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)]. 5. 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. 6. 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. It is submitted that 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). 7. We are inclined to follow the view taken by this Court in IPG advertising and business services LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Writ Petition (L) No. 35979 of 2024 (Original Side) order dated 4th August, 2025. This Court by the order dated 4th August 2025 while setting aside the impugned notice has observed thus:- “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 Shubham Talle 2 of

21-WP-11094-2025.doc 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 order issues are also raised challenging the Notice issued under Section 148.” 8. For the same reasons and with the same liberty as in IPG advertising and business services LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), rule is accordingly made absolute and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. 9. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. [ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] Shubham Talle 3 of

3 TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.09.19 12:19:10 +0530

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →