Nirmala Madan (2018 19) vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Nirmala Madan (2018 19) vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 3(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 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 the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

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 liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

Since the issue of the Section 148 notice being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), this Court is bound to follow that decision 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, simply by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application being necessary), in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue; once revived and restored, the Petition is to be decided on its own merits considering the several other issues raised challenging the Section 148 Notice.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Writ Petition No. 2100 of 2025, decided 14 July 2025; Coram: B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.) — Nirmala Madan v. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. The Petition challenged a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various grounds, principally that it had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — a defect the Petitioner urged was fatal, requiring quashing. The Petitioner contended the issue was squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of the same Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. Although the Revenue's advocate stated that decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (with no stay), the Court held that once the issue is fully covered by Hexaware it was bound to follow it, and did not propose to keep the matter pending. The Court set aside the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, while granting the Revenue liberty to revive the Petition by merely moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed) should the Supreme Court set aside Hexaware on this issue; a revived Petition would be decided on its own merits on the several other issues raised. Rule was made absolute, the Writ Petition was disposed of in terms thereof, and there was no order as to costs.

30 wp2100-25.doc

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.07.18 18:27:04 +0530

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

WRIT PETITION NO.2100 OF 2025

Nirmala Madan .. Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai and Ors.

.. Respondents

Mr.Devendra Jain a/w Mr.Shashank Mehta i/b Ms.Radha Halbe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 14, 2025

P. C.

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 9^th December 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.

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

Page 1 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

Mohite

30 wp2100-25.doc

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.

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)] .

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).

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.

Mohite

Page 2 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

30 wp2100-25.doc

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

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.

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.

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.

Page 3 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

Mohite

30 wp2100-25.doc

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 4 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

Mohite