Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of: impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty reserved to the Revenue to revive the petition by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; no revival if the SLP is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is vitiated (and liable to be quashed) because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer.

Court's answer

Since the issue (notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer) is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow it and does not propose to keep the matter pending, noting there is no stay to that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

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 necessary and revival can be sought simply by moving a Praecipe before the Court.ratio¶23
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 of this petition.obiter¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), W.P. No. 1465 of 2025, decided 06-08-2025 — Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Mumbai & Ors. The writ petition challenged a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various grounds, principally that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandated issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — asserted to be a fatal defect warranting quashing. The Petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision of the same Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. The Revenue conceded the issue was concluded by Hexaware but noted it was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SLP pending, likely to be taken up shortly); it fairly stated there was no stay to that judgment. Holding itself bound to follow the covering decision, the Court set aside the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the writ petition. Liberty was reserved to the Revenue to revive the petition by moving a mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed) if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware on this issue; if the SLP is dismissed, there would be no question of revival. On revival, the petition would be decided on its own merits, several other issues against the Notice remaining open. No order as to costs.

26-1465-2025-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 1465 OF 2025

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAYSHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.11 15:44:11 +0530

Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Shashank Ajay Mehta i/b Mr. Kumar Kale, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Mohinee Chougule i/b Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 6, 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.

Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 6, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

26-1465-2025-WP=.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 shortly. The learned Counsel for the Revenue 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

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 6, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

26-1465-2025-WP=.doc

(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 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 3 of 3 AUGUST 6, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap