Allowed¶27

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

Reassessment – Notice under S.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Bombay HC21 Jul 2025WP/1693/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.148 IT Act notice quashed – issued by Jurisdictional AO not Faceless AO – Bombay HC follows Hexaware Technologies Ltd (162 taxmann.com 225 Bom) despite pending Supreme Court SLP, no stay – notice and emanating proceedings set aside – Rule made absolute, petition disposed, no costs – Revenue may revive by Praecipe if Hexaware reversed; no revival if SLP dismissed; revived petition on own merits.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; liberty to the Revenue to revive the Petition by Praecipe if Hexaware Technologies Ltd is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ¶27

dirang energy Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3)(1) — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

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, is fatally defective and must be quashed. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Following Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is set aside, along with all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Once an issue is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), this Court is bound to follow it and will not keep the matter pending merely because that decision has been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly as there is no stay of that judgment.

¶20

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition, by moving a mere Praecipe without filing a separate Interim Application, if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; conversely, if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against that decision, there would be no question of any revival.ratio¶25
If the Petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, considering that several other issues challenging the Notice under Section 148 were also raised.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Reassessment – Notice under S.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer though the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer – Petitioner argued the defect is fatal and the Notice must be quashed, relying on the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) – Revenue conceded the issue is concluded by Hexaware, acknowledged its pending SLP challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and confirmed there is no stay of that judgment – Being bound to follow Hexaware, the Court declined to keep the matter pending, set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the Writ Petition without costs – Liberty reserved to the Revenue to revive the Petition by a mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; no revival if the SLP is dismissed – Any revived Petition to be decided on its own merits, several other issues having been raised against the Notice.

¶1

145..wp.1693.25.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1693 OF 2025

¶4

Dirang Energy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors .. Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed by ANJALI ANJALI TUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2025.08.13 16:30:44 +0530

¶8

Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b Mint and Confreres, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Viraaj Y. Bhate i/b Yogeshwar Bhate , Advocates for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2025.

¶11

P. C.

¶12

1. Mentioned. Taken out of turn.

¶13

2. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶14

3. 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 Page 1 of 4 AUGUST 4, 2025

¶15

Aswale

¶16

145..wp.1693.25.doc

¶17

therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner.

¶18

4. It is the Petitioner’s 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)] .

¶19

5. 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) .

¶20

6. 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.

¶21

Page 2 of 4 AUGUST 4, 2025

¶22

Aswale

¶23

145..wp.1693.25.doc

¶24

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

¶25

8. 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.

¶26

9. 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.

¶27

10. 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.

¶28

Page 3 of 4 AUGUST 4, 2025

¶29

Aswale

¶30

145..wp.1693.25.doc

¶31

11. 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.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 4 of 4 AUGUST 4, 2025

¶34

Aswale

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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