Allowed¶9

Vedini Vinimay Private Limited v. Union of India

Income Tax – Notice under S.148, Income Tax Act, 1961

Bombay HC1 Jul 2025WP/2182/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; faceless assessing officer vs jurisdictional assessing officer; notice set aside/quashed; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; SLP pending before Supreme Court, no stay; liberty to Revenue to revive writ petition by Praecipe; revived petition to be decided on merits; Bombay High Court writ petition allowed; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute and writ petition disposed of in terms thereof: impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty to Revenue to revive the petition by Praecipe if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Supreme Court; no order as to costs. ¶9

Vedini Vinimay Private Limited vs Union of India — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is fatally defective and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

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

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to keep the matter pending: the issue being fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), it was bound to follow that decision.

¶5

Key takeaways

Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; revival requires no separate Interim Application and can be done simply by moving a Praecipe; if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP, there would be no question of revival.ratio¶7
If the petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues challenging the Section 148 Notice were also raised.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax – Notice under S.148, Income Tax Act, 1961 – Issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer though law mandates issuance by Faceless Assessing Officer – Petitioner relied on Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]; Revenue conceded the issue was concluded thereby, that the decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that there was no stay – Court held itself bound to follow Hexaware and declined to keep the matter pending – Impugned Notice under S.148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside – Liberty to Revenue to revive the petition simply by Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if Hexaware is set aside by the Supreme Court; no revival if the SLP is dismissed – Revived petition to be decided on its own merits on all other issues – Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

¶1

134.wp.2182.2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2182 OF 2025

¶4

Vedini Vinimay Pvt Ltd .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ghanshyam Karkera, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2025.09.09 15:43:48 +0530

¶9

Mr.Vikas Khanchandani, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1 of 4 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶15

Utkarsh

¶16

134.wp.2182.2025.doc

¶17

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 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 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶22

Utkarsh

¶23

134.wp.2182.2025.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 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

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.

¶28

Utkarsh

¶29

Page 3 of 4 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶30

134.wp.2182.2025.doc

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 4 of 4 SEPTEMBER 02, 2025

¶34

Utkarsh

Vedini Vinimay Private Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedini Vinimay Private Limited v. Union of India

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

Trucap Finance Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1)

Haresh Ravji Majethia vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi

Nath Industries Limited vs Union of India

The Bombay St Xaviers Society 2022 23 vs Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption)

Trent Limited vs National Faceless Appeal Centre through Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax (Nfac) And Ors.

Pushpa Geethan Gada vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai