Allowed¶29

Structural Specialities and Projects (India) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Bombay HC21 Jul 2025WP/1343/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice quashed; jurisdictional assessing officer vs faceless assessing officer; Hexaware Technologies Ltd followed (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); SLP pending before Supreme Court, no stay; Bombay HC writ petition 1343 of 2025; rule made absolute; liberty to Revenue to revive by praecipe; decide on own merits on restoration; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; writ petition disposed of in terms thereof; impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside, subject to the Revenue's liberty to seek revival by Praecipe if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra); no order as to costs. ¶29

Structural Specialities and Projects (India) Private Limited vs… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is vitiated because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, entailing quashing of the Notice. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; no separate Interim Application is needed, revival being by mere Praecipe, and there would be no revival if the SLP against Hexaware is dismissed.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Since the controversy is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), this Court is bound to follow it.

¶22

Key takeaways

The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom are set aside.ratio¶26
If the petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, several other issues having been raised challenging the Notice issued under Section 148.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. (30 July 2025), Writ Petition No. 1343 of 2025: Petition challenged a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending that its issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was a fatal defect requiring quashing. The Revenue conceded the issue was concluded 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)], while stating that decision was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with no stay operating. Holding itself bound to follow Hexaware, the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the petition. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the petition by moving a simple Praecipe (without a separate Interim Application) if Hexaware is set aside by the Supreme Court; if the SLP is dismissed, there is no question of revival. On any restoration, the petition is to be decided on its own merits, other grounds against the Notice remaining open. No order as to costs.

¶1

TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE

¶2

62.1343.25-wp.doc

¶3

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.08.02 15:54:08 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1343 OF 2025

¶6

Structural Specialities and Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Respondent

¶9

Mr.Tanmay Phadke, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Vikas Khanchandani, Advocate for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 30, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the

¶14

parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶15

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

¶16

Page 1 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶17

Mohite

¶18

62.1343.25-wp.doc

¶19

Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner.

¶20

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)] .

¶21

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. The learned counsel has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra).

¶22

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.

¶23

Page 2 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶24

Mohite

¶25

62.1343.25-wp.doc

¶26

We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Page 3 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶31

Mohite

¶32

62.1343.25-wp.doc

¶33

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.

¶34

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶35

Page 4 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶36

Mohite

Structural Specialities and Projects (India) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Structural Specialities and Projects (India) Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(2)(2), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Trishta Bharat Vardhan and Anr. vs Champalal K. Vardhan and 35 Ors.

Anita Bharat Vardhan vs Champalal K. Vardhan and 36 Ors.

Mansi Share and Stock Broking Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

Arkay Logistics Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Barcelona Mercantile Company Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1)(1) Mumbai

dirang energy Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3)(1)