RAJENDRA DADASAHEB PANDHARE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/15235/2024HC BombayHCBM07053786202429 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 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 (supra), as the present case is fully covered by it. 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. is 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 dismisses the SLP, 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, Rajendra Dadasaheb Pandhare, filed a Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner argued that the Notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates that such notices must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. This procedural defect, according to the Petitioner, was fatal to the Notice. The Petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment 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. decision but stated that it was under challenge 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 for having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner contended that the Notice is invalid and ought to be quashed because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which is a fatal defect. This contention is squarely covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that the issue is concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, they informed the Court that this decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is likely to be taken up soon. The Revenue also fairly stated that there is 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

56-15235-2024-CWP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15235 OF 2024 Rajendra Dadasaheb Pandhare .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pandharpur & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar a/w Mr. Hetal Laghave, Ms. Sneha More, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 2025 P. C. 1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 25th October 2024 and interim relief was also granted interalia staying the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Today, though the matter has come up under the caption “for directions”, we have, with the consent of parties, heard it 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 Page 1 of 3 JULY 29, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.08.02 12:27:17 +0530

56-15235-2024-CWP=.doc Faceless 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 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. 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. Page 2 of 3 JULY 29, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

56-15235-2024-CWP=.doc 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 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 →