ASHOK VIDYUT FIRM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (3) SOLAPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7699/2025HC BombayHCBM07019917202523 July 2025Bench: 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 Bombay High Court held that it was bound to follow the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) 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. However, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) were to be set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court clarified that revival could be sought by filing a praecipe, and no separate interim application would be necessary. If the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Hexaware decision were dismissed by the Supreme Court, there would be no question of revival. The Court also noted that upon revival, the petition would need to be decided on its own merits, considering other issues raised by the petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ashok Vidyut, 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 a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. This procedural defect, according to the petitioner, rendered the notice fatal. The writ petition was admitted, and an interim stay was granted on the Section 148 notice. The matter was heard finally with the consent of both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to being issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, as mandated by law? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner contended 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, is a fatal defect, warranting the quashing of the notice. The Petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench 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 acknowledged that the issue was concluded by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision but stated that this decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was likely to be taken up immediately upon re-opening. The Revenue 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

61.wp.7699.2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7699 OF 2025 Ashok Vidyut .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Solapur & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Rutuja N. Pawar (through V.C.) a/w Hetal Laghave, Sneha More, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 23, 2025 P. C. 1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 17th 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. Page 1 of 4 JULY 23, 2025 Utkarsh UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2025.07.28 18:52:42 +0530

61.wp.7699.2025.doc

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. 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). Page 2 of 4 JULY 23, 2025 Utkarsh

61.wp.7699.2025.doc

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 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 Page 3 of 4 JULY 23, 2025 Utkarsh

61.wp.7699.2025.doc

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 digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ 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.] Page 4 of 4 JULY 23, 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 →