Allowed

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax CIRCLE-13(1)(2)

Bombay HC5 Aug 2025WP/2294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a Section 148 Income Tax Act notice issued by the Jurisdictional rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer. Following Hexaware Technologies, which squarely covered the issue and was unstayed, the court set aside the notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to revive if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware.

What did the court decide?

Section 148 notice and consequential proceedings/orders set aside; rule made absolute, no costs.

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited vs Assistant… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

77-wp-2294-2024.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2294 OF 2024

¶4

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited .. Petitioner. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 13 (1) (2) & Others .. Respondents.

¶5

Adv. Sukh Sagar Syal with Adv. Sameer G. Dalal, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Adv. Devvrat Singh , for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 05, 2025

¶8

P. C.

¶9

1 In the above Petition Rule was issued on 3^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 directions”, we have, with the consent of parties, heard it finally.

¶10

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

¶11

S.R.JOSHI

¶12

77-wp-2294-2024.doc

¶13

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.

¶14

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)] .

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 05, 2025

¶19

S.R.JOSHI

¶20

77-wp-2294-2024.doc

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 05, 2025

¶27

S.R.JOSHI

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax CIRCLE-13(1)(2)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax CIRCLE-13(1)(2)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 42 Mumbai vs Kalpesh C Shah Ay 2023-13

Ashok Khandelwal vs Union of India

dirang energy Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3)(1)

Pallavi Sandip Nalavade vs Income Tax officer Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai