RAJESH JAYANT PADSALGIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 I SOLAPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/10313/2025HC BombayHCBM07037890202529 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court, acknowledging that the issue was squarely covered by its own Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], held that it was bound to follow that precedent. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings or orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a Praecipe, and if the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, 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. The Court made the Rule absolute and disposed of the Writ Petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Jayant Padsalgikar, 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 a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioner 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) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. However, the Revenue stated that this decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was likely to be taken up soon after re-opening, with no stay 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? Assessee's Contentions: 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 a Faceless Assessing Officer, constitutes a fatal defect rendering the Notice liable to be quashed. The petitioner relied on the 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)]. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue conceded that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, it informed the Court that the said decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was expected to be heard soon after re-opening. The Revenue also fairly stated that there was no stay on 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

66-10313-2025-WP=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10313 OF 2025 Rajesh Jayant Padsalgikar .. Petitioner Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Solapur & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Rutuja Pawar a/w Mr. Hetal Laghave, Ms. Sneha More, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 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 JULY 29, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.08.02 12:27:56 +0530

66-10313-2025-WP=.doc

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 immediately on re-opening. He 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. We however grant liberty to the Revenue to revive the above Writ Petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Page 2 of 3 JULY 29, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

66-10313-2025-WP=.doc

(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 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. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 JULY 29, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →