NEXT ORBIT VENTURES FUND THROU. ITS TRUSTEE NOV. TRUSTEESHIP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4()1(3 AND ORS )

PDF · subscribers
WP/9207/2024HC BombayHCBM01028022202421 July 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], was bound to follow 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. was set aside by the Supreme Court. It was clarified that revival could be sought 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 assessee, Next Orbit Venture Fund, filed a Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner argued that the Notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates it should be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. This, they contended, was a fatal defect. 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, but stated that this decision had been challenged 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 because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a 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 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 for quashing. They relied on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [(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 informed the Court that this judgment had been challenged before the Supreme Court and was likely to be taken up immediately upon reopening. They fairly stated that there was no stay on 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

29-9207-2024-CWP=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9207 OF 2024 Next Orbit Venture Fund .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(3) & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/w Aadnya C. Bhandari, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Mamta Omle, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 21, 2025 P. C.

1.

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 17th February 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 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 JULY 21, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.07.23 11:22:53 +0530

29-9207-2024-CWP=.doc 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. She 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 21, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

29-9207-2024-CWP=.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 21, 2025 Uday S. Jagtap

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →