Hiral Paras Shah vs Union of India — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Hiral Paras Shah vs Union of India — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer suffers a fatal defect and is liable to be quashed +1 more

Court's answer

The issue being fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow it and does not propose to keep the matter pending

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 on this issueratio¶26
Revival does not require a separate Interim Application; the Revenue may seek it simply by moving a Praecipe before the Courtratio¶26
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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Writ Petition No. 207 of 2025 — Hiral Paras Shah v. The Union of India & Ors. (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.; August 6, 2025). The petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — urged as a fatal defect requiring quashing. The point was said to be 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, that the said decision was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that there was no stay of it. Holding itself bound to follow Hexaware, the Court set aside the impugned Section 148 notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made the rule absolute and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the petition by merely moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; if the SLP is dismissed there would be no question of revival; and any revived petition is to be decided on its own merits, several other grounds against the notice remaining undecided.

45-207-2025-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 207 OF 2025

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.11 15:10:08 +0530

Hiral Paras Shah

Versus

The Union of India & Ors.

.. Petitioner

.. Respondents

Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Bhagrati Sahu i/b UBR Legal Advocates, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Ms. Mamta Omle , Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2025

P. C.

1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 24^th February 2025 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 AUGUST 6, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

45-207-2025-WP=.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 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.

Uday S. Jagtap

45-207-2025-WP=.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 AUGUST 6, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap