AMAR RAMESH JAVANJAL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/6624/2025HC BombayHCBM07023991202530 July 2025Bench: 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 the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Following this precedent, 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 Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. The revival can be done by filing a praecipe. If the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there will be no revival. The Court clarified that upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Amar Ramesh Javanjal, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petition 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, rendered the notice void. The matter was heard finally by the Bombay High Court after a rule was issued and interim relief was granted, staying the Section 148 notice. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? Assessee's Contention: 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 the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect that warrants quashing the notice. The petitioner relied on the 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)]. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the issue is concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, they stated that this decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the appeal is likely to be heard soon. The Revenue fairly conceded 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

71.6624.25-wp.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6624 OF 2025 Amar Ramesh Javanjal .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer & Ors.

.. Respondents Ms.Rutuja Pawar a/w Ms.Hetal Laghave a/w Ms.Sneha More, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, 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 17th June 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. 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 Page 1 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.08.02 13:59:33 +0530

71.6624.25-wp.doc

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). 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 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite

71.6624.25-wp.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 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. Page 3 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite

71.6624.25-wp.doc

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →