Allowed¶30

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

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025WP/2049/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Notice quashed; faceless assessment; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; Income Tax Act 1961; Bombay High Court OOCJ Writ Petition 2049 of 2025; Nirmala Madan v ITO Ward-3(2)(1) Mumbai; rule made absolute; disposed without costs; revival by Praecipe; Supreme Court challenge to Hexaware pending; interim relief stay of Section 148 notice.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof with no order as to costs; liberty reserved to the Revenue to revive the Petition by Praecipe if Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Supreme Court. ¶30

Nirmala MADAN-2013-14 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect requiring the Notice to be quashed +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

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

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., this Court is bound to follow it and did not propose to keep the matter pending

¶23

Key takeaways

Liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition, without a separate Interim Application and simply by moving a Praecipe, if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issueobiter¶25
If revived and restored, the Petition would have to be decided on its own merits, considering that several other issues are also raised challenging the Section 148 Noticeobiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2049 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), decided 15 July 2025 by B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. — Nirmala Madan v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Rule had been issued on 23 October 2024 with interim relief staying the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; though listed under the caption “for direction”, the matter was heard finally with the consent of parties. The Petition challenged the Section 148 Notice on various grounds, principal among them that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — urged to be a fatal defect requiring quashing. The Petitioner contended the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench decision 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 stood concluded by that decision, acknowledged it was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court (likely to be taken up immediately on re-opening) and fairly stated there was no stay to that judgment. Holding itself bound to follow Hexaware, the Court set aside the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the Writ Petition without costs. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the Petition simply by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application being necessary) should the Supreme Court set aside Hexaware on this issue; a revived Petition is to be decided on its own merits, several other issues having been raised against the Notice.

¶1

10.wp.2049.2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2049 OF 2025

¶4

Nirmala Madan .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2025.07.17 10:31:45 +0530

¶8

Ms.Radha Halbe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 15, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

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 direction”, we have, with the consent of parties, heard it finally.

¶13

2. The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various

¶14

Page 1 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

¶15

Utkarsh

¶16

10.wp.2049.2025.doc

¶17

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.

¶18

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)] .

¶19

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

¶20

Page 2 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

¶21

Utkarsh

¶22

10.wp.2049.2025.doc

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Page 3 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

¶28

Utkarsh

¶29

10.wp.2049.2025.doc

¶30

9. Rule is accordingly made absolute and the Writ Petition is

¶31

also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

¶35

Utkarsh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala MADAN-2013-14 v. Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)- 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

Ashok Khandelwal vs Union of India

Johnson and Johnson vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 3 1 1

Nirmala Madan (2018 19) 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

Tulsidas Khimji Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Income Tax - 2(3)(1)