VISHNUDAS BALKISHAN ASAWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD SILVASSA WARD SILVASSA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/483/2026HC BombayHCBM01065373202519 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it is bound to follow the decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as the present case is fully covered by it. Consequently, 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. (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be done by filing a Praecipe, and if revived, there would be a stay on the impugned notice until further orders. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that if revived, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vishnudas Balkishan Asawa, 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 respondents, the Income Tax Officer Ward Silvassa and others, were represented by no one. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay noted that the issue was covered by a previous decision of its own Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The Revenue, however, informed the court that the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision was challenged 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 and fact, concerning Section 148). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the Notice under Section 148 is fatally defective and must be quashed because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law requires it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. This contention is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the issue is concluded by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). However, they stated that this decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the matter is likely to be taken up shortly. The Revenue also fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

24-WP-483-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2026 Vishnudas Balkishan Asawa .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward Silvassa, Ward Silvassa and Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Sanket Bora, with Adv. Deepak Sharma, Adv. Arrchena Shetty, Adv. Vidhi Punmiya, Adv. Amiya Ranjan Das, i/b SPCM Legal, Advocates for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents-Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 19, 2026 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 4 JANUARY 19, 2026 Darshan Patil 2026:BHC-AS:3730-DB

24-WP-483-2026.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 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. Page 2 of 4 JANUARY 19, 2026 Darshan Patil

24-WP-483-2026.doc

6.

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. 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. Page 3 of 4 JANUARY 19, 2026 Darshan Patil

24-WP-483-2026.doc

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. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 4 of 4 JANUARY 19, 2026 Darshan Patil Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 27/01/2026 11:13:50

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →