Shrenik Shashikant Surana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 1, Nashik AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/8124/2025HC BombayHCBM01024723202514 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 Bombay High Court held that since the issue raised by the Petitioner is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], the Court is bound to follow it. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue, which can be done by moving a Praecipe. The Court clarified that once revived, the Petition would be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court is bound by its own Division Bench judgments unless stayed or overruled by a higher court, even if an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shrenik S. Surana, 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 the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer, constituting a fatal defect. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The impugned action is the Notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings. The authority that passed the order under challenge is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Nashik. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the filing of the Writ Petition and the respondents waiving service, with the Rule being made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed on the ground that 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 contended that the Notice under Section 148 is a fatal defect as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law requires it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of this 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 is concluded by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). However, they stated that this decision has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is likely to be taken up immediately on re-opening. The Revenue fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

161-wp-8124-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8124 OF 2025 Shrenik S. Surana .. Petitioner. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1, Nashik & Others .. Respondents. Adv. Shashi Bekal, for the Petitioner. Adv. A. K. Saxena, 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 S.R.JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI RAJNIKANT JOSHI Date: 2025.07.16 14:28:28 +0530

161-wp-8124-2025.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. 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 JULY 14, 2025 S.R.JOSHI

161-wp-8124-2025.doc

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 S.R.JOSHI

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →