NITIN EKNAH SONAWANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The Bombay High Court held that the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Court stated it was bound to follow its prior judgment. Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders were set aside. 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 clarified that revival could be sought by a Praecipe, and if revived, the impugned notice would be stayed until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware Technologies Ltd., 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, Nitin Eknath Sonawane, 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 instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, which the petitioner argued was a fatal defect. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment but stated it had been challenged before the Supreme Court, though no stay was in place.
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? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 148 and related procedural rules). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148 notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect and warrants quashing the notice. The Petitioner 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 is covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment but noted that this decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue stated there was no stay on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
17-WP-15922-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15922 OF 2025 Nitin Eknath Sonawane .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1 Nashik and Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Vivek Punjabi, with Adv. Priyansh R. Jain, Advocates for the Petitioner. Adv. A. K. Saxena, Advocate for the Respondents-Revenue.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 1, 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 4 DECEMBER 1, 2025 Aswale 2025:BHC-AS:53025
17-WP-15922-2025.doc
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).
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 4 DECEMBER 1, 2025 Aswale
17-WP-15922-2025.doc
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. Page 3 of 4 DECEMBER 1, 2025 Aswale
17-WP-15922-2025.doc
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 4 of 4 DECEMBER 1, 2025 Aswale Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/12/2025 16:39:02
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
