Allowed¶26

Sanjivani Export v. Income Tax Officer, WARD-22(3)(6), Mumbai

Bombay HC18 Aug 2025WP/1367/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice quashed/set aside; jurisdictional AO versus faceless AO defect; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; Income Tax Act 1961; Bombay High Court OOCJ writ petition allowed; rule made absolute; no costs; liberty to Revenue to revive via praecipe if Supreme Court overturns Hexaware; SLP dismissal bars revival; revived petition to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty to Revenue to revive the Petition by Praecipe if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd; no order as to costs ¶26

Sanjivani Export vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-22(3)(6), Mumbai — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, having been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, suffers a fatal defect and must be quashed

¶16

Court's answer

Since the issue is fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow it and will not keep the matter pending merely because that decision is under challenge before the Supreme Court (no stay operating)

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom are set aside

¶20

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, without a separate Interim Application and simply by moving a Praecipe; if the SLP is dismissed, there is no question of revivalratio¶24
If the Petition is revived and restored, it will be decided on its own merits, since several other grounds challenging the Section 148 Notice were raised but not decidedobiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), W.P. No.1367 of 2025 (Sanjivani Export v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(3)(6), Mumbai), decided 18 August 2025 (Colabawalla & Pooniwalla, JJ.): Writ Petition challenging a Section 148 Income Tax Act, 1961 Notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the mandated Faceless Assessing Officer. Following the Division Bench ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) — under challenge in the Supreme Court but unstayed — the Court held it was bound to follow that decision, set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the Petition with no order as to costs. Liberty granted to the Revenue to seek revival by mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; no revival if the SLP is dismissed; any revived Petition to be decided on its own merits, other grounds against the Notice remaining open.

¶1

6 wp1367-25.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.08.20 15:19:50 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2025

¶5

Sanjivani Export .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(3)(6), Mumbai .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Dharan Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma (Through V.C.), Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 18, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 4^th March 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.

¶13

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 Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶14

Mohite

¶15

6 wp1367-25.doc

¶16

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

¶17

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)] .

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶22

Mohite

¶23

6 wp1367-25.doc

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 18, 2025

¶30

Mohite

Sanjivani Export v. Income Tax Officer, WARD-22(3)(6), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjivani Export v. Income Tax Officer, WARD-22(3)(6), 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

Sysmex India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2)

Akbar Mohammed Khan vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Supremus Lower Parel Premises Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Kidderpore Holding Ltd) vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 8

Lokesh Ramavtar khandelwal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1)

Lokesh Ramavtar khandelwal vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(1)

Ravi Surajkaran Parik 2021 22 vs Income Tax Officer Ward 41 3 3 Mumbai and 2 Ors.