Trucap Finance Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Trucap Finance Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle… — 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 Revenue to revive the Petition by Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, suffers a fatal defect such that the Notice must be quashed.

Court's answer

The issue of a Section 148 Notice having been 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), which this Court is bound to follow; the matter is therefore not kept pending despite the pending challenge to Hexaware before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (no stay operating).

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; revival may be sought simply by moving a Praecipe, without filing a separate Interim Application.ratio¶28
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.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income-tax – Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Issuance by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to the mandate of faceless assessment – Assessee (TRUCAP Finance Limited) contended the defect was fatal and the Notice had to be quashed, relying on 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) – Revenue fairly conceded the issue was concluded by Hexaware, that the said decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that no stay operated against it – Held, once fully covered by Hexaware the Court was bound to follow it: the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside – Liberty to Revenue to revive the Writ Petition, upon Hexaware being set aside by the Supreme Court, simply by moving a Praecipe without a separate Interim Application – Revived Petition to be decided on its own merits on all issues raised – Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

126-wp-2969-2024.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.2969 OF 2024

TRUCAP Finance Limited .. Petitioner.

Versus

Digitally signed SMITA by SMITARAJNIKANT RAJNIKANTJOSHI JOSHIDate:2025.07.16 14:28:28 +0530

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 (3)(1)

Adv. Shashi Bekal, for the Petitioner.

.. Respondents.

Adv. Vipul Bajpayee , for Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 14, 2025

P. C.

1 Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the

parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard 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 Faceless

S.R.JOSHI

126-wp-2969-2024.doc

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 immediately on re-opening. He 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.

Page 2 of 3 JULY 14, 2025

S.R.JOSHI

126-wp-2969-2024.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.

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 JULY 14, 2025

S.R.JOSHI