Allowed¶6

Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v. Income Tax Officer - Ward 24(2)(1) Mumbai

Bombay HC11 Nov 2025WP/2117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice set aside; jurisdictional Assessing Officer vs Faceless Assessing Officer; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; notice and consequential proceedings quashed; liberty to Revenue to revive via Praecipe if Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; stay on notice upon revival; Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2024; Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v. ITO Ward-24(2)(1) Mumbai; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of; impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty to the Revenue to revive the Petition by Praecipe if Hexaware is set aside by the Supreme Court, with a stay on the Notice upon revival; no order as to costs ¶6

Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 24(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect rendering the Notice liable to be quashed

¶1

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and the Court is bound to follow it; the matter was therefore not kept pending despite the pending challenge before the Supreme Court

¶5

Ratio / Principle

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

¶6

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by moving a Praecipe without filing a separate Interim Application; upon revival there will be a stay on the operation and implementation of the impugned Section 148 notice until further orders; if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there is no question of revivalratio¶7
If the Petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, several other issues having been raised challenging the Section 148 Noticeobiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2024, Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai & Anr. (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, OOCJ; B.P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.; 25-11-2025): The Petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending it was fatally defective because issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer. Holding the issue squarely covered by its Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) — under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but without any stay — the Court followed that decision, 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 reserved to the Revenue to revive the Petition by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware on this issue, in which event the operation and implementation of the impugned notice would stand stayed until further orders; dismissal of the SLP would foreclose revival. Any revived Petition is to be decided on its own merits, several other grounds against the notice having been raised.

¶1

7.wp.2117.2024.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2117 OF 2024

¶4

Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(2)(1), Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO

¶8

Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2025.11.26 17:56:09 +0530

¶9

Mr. Aman Ketan Shah (through V.C.) i/b Niraj Punmiya, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

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

¶14

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 Faceless Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and Page 1 of 4 NOVEMBER 25, 2025

¶15

Utkarsh

¶16

7.wp.2117.2024.doc

¶17

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

¶18

3. 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

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).

¶20

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.

¶21

Page 2 of 4 NOVEMBER 25, 2025

¶22

Utkarsh

¶23

7.wp.2117.2024.doc

¶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. It is further ordered that in the event the above Petition is revived, there will be a stay to the operation and implementation of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 until further orders. 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

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 NOVEMBER 25, 2025

¶28

Utkarsh

¶29

7.wp.2117.2024.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

[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶34

Page 4 of 4 NOVEMBER 25, 2025

¶35

Utkarsh

Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v. Income Tax Officer - Ward 24(2)(1) Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Gaurav Raimalani v. Income Tax Officer - Ward 24(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

Sanjay Moreshwar Potdar vs National Faceless Assessment Center Delhi

Sane and Doshi vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 17 1

Sanghvi Premises Private Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax circle 8 1 1

Tata Communications Limited vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 3 1 Mumbai

Tata Communications Limited vs Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 3 1 Mumbai

Tlg India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Incone Tax Circle 8 3 1 Mumbai