DEEPA SHIVNATH MEHTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE INT TAX 2(2)(1) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12964/2025HC BombayHCBM01047796202503 November 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is fatal to the Notice. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. would not apply due to the case involving international taxation. The Court relied on another Division Bench judgment, Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation [2024] 166 taxmann.com.679 (Bombay), which clearly opined that even in cases of central charges and international taxation, the Notice must be issued under the faceless procedure. Paragraph 17 of Abhin Shah was cited, stating the mandatory faceless procedure applies to international taxation charges. Consequently, the impugned Notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Supreme Court sets aside the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and made the rule absolute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepa Shivnath Mehta, filed a Writ Petition 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 it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended this was a fatal defect. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The procedural history involves the rule being made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties and the matter being heard finally.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect and liable to be quashed? (Question of law, concerning Section 148 and the faceless assessment scheme). Assessee's contention: The Notice is fatally defective as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the Faceless Assessing Officer, relying 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 ratio in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. would not apply as the present case relates to international taxation. Alternatively, the Revenue submitted that the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment is under challenge before the Supreme Court and requested the Writ Petition be kept pending until the Supreme Court's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144B,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

38-AS-WP-12964-25-.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12964 OF 2025 Deepa Shivnath Mehta .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 2(2)(1) & Ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Devendra Jain a/w Saukhya Lakade i/b. Shashank Mehta, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gulabani [Through VC], Advocate for the Respondents/Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 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 Page 1 of 5 NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar-Court Steno VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2025.11.07 18:20:09 +0530

38-AS-WP-12964-25-.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 the ratio laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case because the present matter is in relation to international taxation and hence that would not be covered. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel further submitted that even if the ratio of the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) was to apply, the said judgment has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is likely to take up the matter shortly. He, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition be kept pending till the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. In the facts Page 2 of 5 NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar-Court Steno

38-AS-WP-12964-25-.doc

of the present case, there is no dispute that the Notice under Section 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer. This, as per the decision in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), would be fatal to the Notice. We find no force in the argument of the Revenue that the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) would not apply to the present case because it relates to international taxation. This issue is also covered by another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation [2024] 166 taxmann.com.679 (Bombay). In this decision, the Division Bench has clearly opined that even in cases of central charges and international taxation, the Notice would have to be issued under the faceless procedure, namely, the Faceless Assessing Officer. Paragraph 17 of the decision in Abhin Shah (supra) sets out the aforesaid proposition and reads thus:- “17. We have thus reached a considered conclusion that the mandatory faceless procedure for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act falling within the purview of the scheme notified by the Central Government dated 29 March 2022 would not exclude the Central charges and International taxation charges from the application of the faceless mechanism as notified under section 144B read with section 151A of the Act.” Page 3 of 5 NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar-Court Steno

38-AS-WP-12964-25-.doc

6.

We, therefore, find that the contention of the Revenue that in the present case the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer could have issued Notice under Section 148 is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Once we find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered not only by the decision of Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) but also in the case of Abhin Shah (supra), we are bound to follow the said decisions. 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. In the event the above Petition stands revived, there will be a stay to the implementation and operation of the 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. Page 4 of 5 NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar-Court Steno

38-AS-WP-12964-25-.doc

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. [AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 5 of 5 NOVEMBER 3, 2025 Santosh Chabukswar-Court Steno

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →