KANTILAL M MANDOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 3 SOLAPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/8693/2025HC BombayHCBM07033949202507 July 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was 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). Consequently, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders emanating therefrom were set aside. 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 on this issue. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by a Praecipe, and upon revival, the petition would be decided on its merits, considering other issues raised. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kantilal M. Mandot, 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 respondents, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik & Ors., acknowledged that the 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), but noted that this decision was under challenge before the Supreme Court. No stay was in effect on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment.

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 a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? (Question of law and fact, concerning the procedural validity of the notice). Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148 notice by a 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. They relied on the decision 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 concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, they stated that this decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is likely to be taken up soon. They fairly admitted that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

64.

wp.8693.2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8693 OF 2025 Kantilal M. Mandot .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Rutuja Pawar (through V.C.) a/w Hetal Laghave, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 07, 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 JULY 07, 2025 Utkarsh UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2025.07.10 11:48:22 +0530

64.

wp.8693.2025.doc

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. 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. JULY 07, 2025 Utkarsh

64.

wp.8693.2025.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.

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. JULY 07, 2025 Utkarsh

64.

wp.8693.2025.doc

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 07, 2025 Utkarsh

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →