Allowed¶27

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev v. Income Tax Officer Ward and Anr.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2025WP/3049/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; Income Tax Act, 1961; faceless assessment; notice by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer; fatal defect; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; SLP pending before Supreme Court, no stay; notice set aside; rule made absolute; writ petition disposed; liberty to Revenue to revive by Praecipe; Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 3049 of 2024; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Writ Petition disposed of, with liberty to the Revenue to revive it by Praecipe if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; no order as to costs. ¶27

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev vs Income Tax Officer Ward and Anr. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as mandated by law, suffers from a fatal defect and is liable to be quashed.

¶17

Court's answer

The Petitioner's challenge is fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), which the Court is bound to follow; the matter was therefore not kept pending despite the pending challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (there being no stay of the Hexaware judgment).

¶20

Ratio / Principle

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

¶24

Key takeaways

Liberty is 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 on this issue; revival can be sought simply by moving a Praecipe, without a separate Interim Application, and there would be no question of any revival if the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP.ratio¶25
If the Petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues were also raised challenging the Notice issued under Section 148.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 3049 of 2024 — Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev v. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai (Colabawalla & Pooniwalla, JJ., July 30, 2025). The petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandated issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — contended to be a fatal defect. Holding the issue squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), which the Court was bound to follow (noting that decision is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but unstayed), the Court set aside the impugned notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made the rule absolute and disposed of the petition. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the petition by mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; no revival if the SLP is dismissed; if revived, the petition is to be decided afresh on its own merits on all issues raised. No order as to costs.

¶1

65.3049.24-wp.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.08.02 13:59:41 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2024

¶5

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai .. Respondent

¶8

Ms.Ritika Agarwal a/w Ms.Yaminee Verma i/b M/s.ACE Legal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Arjun Gupta, Advocate for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 30, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 18^th November 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.

¶13

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 30, 2025

¶14

Mohite

¶15

65.3049.24-wp.doc

¶16

grounds is that the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing

¶17

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.

¶18

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

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

¶20

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 JULY 30, 2025

¶22

Mohite

¶23

65.3049.24-wp.doc

¶24

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

¶25

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶29

Mohite

¶30

65.3049.24-wp.doc

¶31

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.]

¶33

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶34

Page 4 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶35

Mohite

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev v. Income Tax Officer Ward and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev v. Income Tax Officer Ward and Anr.

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

Accounts Receivables Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Successor to Gill Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs Deptuy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6 (1) (1) Mumbai

Sanghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -8-4, Mumbai

Bhoomivijay Properties Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 1(2)(1)

Amar Ramesh Javanjal vs Income-Tax Officer Ward 2 Pandharpur and Ors.

Balaji Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 1(1) and Ors.

Rajesh Barkatali Surani vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) and Ors.