KISANRAO DHAVAJI RATHOD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3)
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, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which squarely covers the issue raised by the petitioner. 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 revival can be done by filing a Praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there will be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other grounds raised by the petitioner.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kisanrao Dhavaji Rathod, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. This procedural defect, according to the petitioner, was fatal to the notice. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The High Court had previously issued a Rule and granted interim relief staying the Section 148 notice. The matter was heard finally with the consent of both parties.
What were the issues?
1. Whether a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law requires it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148 notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the mandated Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect that warrants quashing the notice. They relied on the decision of a Division Bench 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 Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the issue is covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision but stated that this decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is likely to be taken up soon. The Revenue conceded that there is no stay on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
125.18554.2024-wp.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 18554 OF 2024 Kisanrao Dhavaji Rathod .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Pune – 411 037 & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Tanzil Padvekar a/w Ms.Tejal P. Kharkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.K.Saxena, Advocate for Respondent.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 30, 2025 P. C. 1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 15th January 2025 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. Page 1 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.08.02 13:59:25 +0530
125.18554.2024-wp.doc
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. 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 has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra). Page 2 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite
125.18554.2024-wp.doc
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 (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. Page 3 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite
125.18554.2024-wp.doc
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 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite
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.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026