VISHAL ARVIND SINGH LHR OF DECD ASSESSEE ARVIND KUMAR MATAPRASAD SINGH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTL)TAX WARD- 4(2) (1), MUMBAI AND ORS
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 a fatal defect. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's argument that the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax would not apply to central charges. The Court relied on another Division Bench judgment in Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation, which clearly opined that even in cases of central charges and international taxation, the Notice must be issued under the faceless procedure. The Court found that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by both Hexaware Technologies Ltd. and Abhin Shah. Accordingly, the impugned Notice under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings/orders 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. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Vishal Arvind Singh, 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 a Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that this procedural defect is fatal to the Notice. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The respondents are the Income-Tax Officer (Intl.) Tax Ward - 4(2)(1), Mumbai, and others. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard the matter. The procedural history involves the issuance of a Rule which was waived by the respondents, and the matter was 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 rendering the Notice invalid? (Question of law, concerning Section 148 and the faceless assessment scheme). Assessee's Contention: The Notice is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, contrary to the mandate of the faceless assessment procedure. This issue is covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: The ratio in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. does not apply to the present case as it relates to central charges. Alternatively, the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. has been challenged before the Supreme Court, and the Writ Petition should be kept pending until the Supreme Court's decision. The Revenue did not argue that the Notice was validly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
26.OS.17402.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17402 OF 2025 Vishal Arvind Singh .. Petitioner Versus The Income-Tax Officer (Intl.) Tax Ward - 4(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Devendra H. Jain a/w Saukhya Lakade i/b Shahshank A. Mehta Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Niyanta Trivedi, Advocates for the Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: December 22nd , 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 5 December 22, 2025 Sufiyan Syed – P.A. VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2025.12.31 12:31:01 +0530
26.OS.17402.2025
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 central charges 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 of the present case, there is no dispute that the Notice under Section 148 has Page 2 of 5 December 22, 2025 Sufiyan Syed – P.A.
26.OS.17402.2025
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 central charges. This issue is also covered by another Division Bench judgment of this Court and in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s Income-tax Officer, International Taxation [2024] 166 taxmann.com679 (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 29th 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 December 22, 2025 Sufiyan Syed – P.A.
26.OS.17402.2025
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 December 22, 2025 Sufiyan Syed – P.A.
26.OS.17402.2025
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 December 22, 2025 Sufiyan Syed – P.A.
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