ANIL BAPURAO PATIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PANDHARPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/9629/2025HC BombayHCBM07036612202514 July 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was bound to follow 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)], as the present case was squarely 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 done by filing a Praecipe, and upon revival, the Petition would be decided on its merits, considering other raised issues. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anil Bapurao Patil, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A key ground for challenge was that the Notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioner argued this was a fatal defect invalidating the Notice. 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 Supreme Court and was likely to be heard soon after re-opening, 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 because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? (Question of 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, constitutes a fatal defect, rendering the Notice liable to be quashed. 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 conceded that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment. However, they submitted that this judgment had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was likely to be heard soon. They fairly stated that there was no stay granted to 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

51 wp9629-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9629 OF 2025 Anil Bapurao Patil .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Pandharpur and Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Rutuja Pawar (through VC) a/w Ms.Hetal Laghave a/w Ms.Sneha More, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 14, 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. JULY 14, 2025 Mohite TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.07.16 12:18:08 +0530

51 wp9629-25.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. JULY 14, 2025 Mohite

51 wp9629-25.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.

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 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.] JULY 14, 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 →