TAUQEER AINULLA ANSARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1 (1) NASHIK AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7602/2025HC BombayHCBM01023221202522 July 2025Author: 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 it was bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench of the same Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings and orders. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Revenue could do so by filing a Praecipe, without needing a separate interim application. If the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. The Court also clarified that if the petition were revived, it would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tauqeer Ainulla Ansari, 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 instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay had issued a rule and granted interim relief, staying the Section 148 notice. The matter was heard finally with the consent of both parties. The Revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by a Division Bench decision 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, though no stay was granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and liable to be quashed on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the issuance of the Section 148 notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect, rendering the notice liable for quashing. 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 concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. However, they informed the Court that this decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was likely to be taken up immediately after the reopening. The Revenue 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

sr.79-wp-7602-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7602 OF 2025 Tauqeer Ainulla Ansari .. Petitioner Versus Income- Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nashik & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Rutuja N. Pawar (Through V. C.) a/w Adv. Hetal Laghave and Adv. Sneha More, for the Petitioner. Adv. A. K. Saxena for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 22, 2025 P. C.

1.

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 17 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 JULY 22, 2025 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.07.28 16:28:22 +0530

sr.79-wp-7602-2025.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. 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 22, 2025 Mansi shelke

sr.79-wp-7602-2025.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. 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. JULY 22, 2025 Mansi shelke

sr.79-wp-7602-2025.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 22, 2025 Mansi shelke

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →