Disposed

Santosh Kashinath Padhi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

Bombay HC16 Jul 2025WP/174/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a Section 148 Income Tax Act notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer. Following Hexaware Technologies Ltd, the court set aside the notice and all consequential proceedings, with liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition if that decision is set aside.

What the court decided

AI extract

Santosh Kashinath Padhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

102-wp-174-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2025

Santosh K. Padhi

.. Petitioner.

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-22(1) & Others

¶8

.. Respondents.

¶9

Adv. P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Adv. Jeet Kamdar i/b. Atul K. Jasani, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Digitally signed by SMITA SMITA RAJNIKANT RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date:2025.07.19 16:39:27 +0530

¶11

Adv. Pritesh Chatterjee, for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 16, 2025

¶13

P. C.

¶14

1 In the above Petition Rule was issued on 23^rd 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.

¶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 Page 1 of 3 JULY 16, 2025

¶16

S.R.JOSHI

¶17

102-wp-174-2025.doc

¶18

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.

¶19

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)] .

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Page 2 of 3 JULY 16, 2025

¶23

S.R.JOSHI

¶24

102-wp-174-2025.doc

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 3 JULY 16, 2025

¶32

S.R.JOSHI

Santosh Kashinath Padhi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santosh Kashinath Padhi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nirmala MADAN-2013-14 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)- Mumbai

Nirmala MADAN-2016-17 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)-MUMBAI

Nirmala Madan (2019 2020) vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1) Mumbai

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (2017 18) vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

Jp Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Income tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

Icici Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Income tax Circle 4(1)(1) Mumbai