Haresh Gobindram Khabrani vs Income-Tax OFFICER-27(1)(1) , Mumbai… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Haresh Gobindram Khabrani vs Income-Tax OFFICER-27(1)(1) , Mumbai… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Rule made absolute and the Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof; liberty to the Revenue to revive the Petition by Praecipe if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision (no revival if the SLP is dismissed); no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, suffers a fatal defect and must be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the challenge is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), this Court is bound to follow it and declines to keep the matter pending merely because that decision is under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom are set aside.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted 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; revival requires no separate Interim Application and can be effected by moving a Praecipe; if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging that decision, there would be no question of any revival.ratio¶24
If the Petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, considering that several other issues are also raised challenging the Notice issued under Section 148.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 14756 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), order dated July 29, 2025. Haresh Gorbindram Khabrani challenged a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, principally on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — urged to be a fatal defect warranting quashing. Rule had been issued on 22nd October 2024 with interim stay of the Notice. Relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], and with the Revenue conceding the issue stood concluded thereby (an SLP pending before the Supreme Court but no stay operating), the Court held itself bound to follow Hexaware, set aside the impugned Notice together with all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made the Rule absolute and disposed of the Writ Petition with no order as to costs. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the Petition simply by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets the Hexaware decision aside; no revival lies if the SLP is dismissed. On any revival, the Petition — which raises several other grounds against the Notice — is to be decided afresh on its own merits.

40-14756-2024-CWP=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 14756 OF 2024

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAYSHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.02 12:27:24 +0530

Haresh Gorbindram Khabrani .. Petitioner

Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar a/w Mr. Hetal Laghave, Ms. Sneha More, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Arjun Gupta , Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 2025

P. C.

1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 22^nd October 2024 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.

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

Page 1 of 3 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

40-14756-2024-CWP=.doc

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. 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.

Page 2 of 3 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

40-14756-2024-CWP=.doc

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 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 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap