VIPINKUMAR SHANTILAL DHABARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(4) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/13075/2024HC BombayHCBM01045254202422 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision 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)]. As the Court is bound to follow its own precedents, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. The Court granted liberty 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 revived, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware judgment, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if the petition is revived, it would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised by the Petitioner. The rule was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vipinkumar Shantilal Dhabaria, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates it should be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. This was contended to be a fatal defect. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay issued a rule and granted interim relief staying the Section 148 notice. The matter was heard finally with the consent of both parties. The Revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous High Court decision but noted it was under challenge before the Supreme Court, though no stay was granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? (Question of 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, is a fatal defect that warrants quashing the notice. The Petitioner 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 Contention: The Revenue conceded that the issue was concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, they stated that this decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the matter was likely to be taken up shortly. The Revenue also fairly stated that there was no stay granted to 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

33.wp.13075.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13075 OF 2024 Vipinkumar Shantilal Dhabaria .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Thane & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Tanzil Padvekar a/w Tejal Kharkar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 P. C. 1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 23rd September 2024 and interim relief was also granted interalia staying the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Today, though the matter has come up under the caption “for directions”, we have, with the consent of parties, heard it 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 Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Darshan Patil 2025:BHC-AS:41264-DB

33.wp.13075.2024.doc

Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner. 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 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. 6. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. Page 2 of 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Darshan Patil

33.wp.13075.2024.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 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. 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 3 of 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Darshan Patil Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2025 18:04:41

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →