BARKHA JAGDISH DUSSEJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
WP/17156/2025HC BombayHCBM01064885202517 December 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 High Court held that since the issue raised by the Petitioner was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2), the Court was bound to follow it. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all proceedings or orders emanating therefrom. The Court noted that the Petitioner had also filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) challenging the Section 148 notice and the assessment order. On instructions, the Petitioner's counsel undertook to withdraw this appeal within three weeks. The Court accepted this undertaking and stipulated that if the present order was challenged by the Revenue and set aside, or if the issue in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was decided against the assessee by the Supreme Court, the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) would automatically stand revived and be prosecuted on its merits. The Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of this order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Barkha Jagdish Dusseja, 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 issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The assessee contended this was 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, circle 15(1)(2), but noted that this decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court. The Revenue also stated there was no stay on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

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? Assessee's Contention: The assessee 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. The assessee relied on the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment but pointed out that this judgment had been challenged before the Supreme Court. The Revenue also fairly stated that there was no stay granted against 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

46-WP-17156-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17156 OF 2025 Barkha Jagdish Dusseja .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward (2)(2), Kalyan and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sham Walve, a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal, Mr. Bhavik Chheda, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents- Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 17, 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 DECEMBER 17, 2025 Darshan Patil 2025:BHC-AS:56920-DB

46-WP-17156-2025.doc

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 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. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner also brought to our notice that the impugned notice issued under section 148 and Page 2 of 3 DECEMBER 17, 2025

46-WP-17156-2025.doc

the assessment order passed thereon have been challenged by the Petitioner by preferring an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals). In light of this order, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, on instructions, undertakes to withdraw the said Appeal within a period of three weeks from today. The said undertaking is accepted. If for any reason, the present order is challenged by the Revenue and is set aside, or if the issue in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) is decided against the Assessee and which is pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, then, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner before CIT (Appeals) will automatically stand revived and the same will be prosecuted on its own merits and in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. 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 DECEMBER 17, 2025 Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/12/2025 12:45:57

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →