Allowed¶25

Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41-2-2

Bombay HC12 Aug 2025WP/3157/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; faceless assessment scheme; jurisdictional assessing officer; fatal defect; Hexaware Technologies Ltd v ACIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); SLP pending in Supreme Court; no stay; writ petition allowed; notice set aside; revival liberty via Praecipe; Bombay High Court; WP 3157 of 2025; Income Tax Act 1961.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof; impugned Section 148 Notice and all emanating proceedings/orders set aside; liberty to the Revenue to revive the Petition (via a simple Praecipe, no separate Interim Application) if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; no revival if the SLP is dismissed; no order as to costs. ¶25

Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41-2-2 — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the mandated Faceless Assessing Officer suffers a fatal defect requiring the Notice to be quashed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Since the issue is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), this Court is bound to follow it and does not propose to keep the matter pending merely because that decision is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

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

¶18

Key takeaways

Revival of the Petition (granted to the Revenue in the event the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) can be sought simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court; a separate Interim Application is not necessary.ratio¶23
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 of this Petition.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCS) [Coram: B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.; 12 August 2025], Writ Petition No. 3157 of 2025 — Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(2), Mumbai & Ors.: Writ petition challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 allowed. Holding the issue squarely covered by Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) — a notice allegedly issued by the Jurisdictional instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer — the Court, noting there is no stay on that decision despite an SLP pending in the Supreme Court, held itself bound to follow it, set aside the impugned Section 148 notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, and made the Rule absolute. Liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the petition by a simple Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision; no revival if the SLP is dismissed; a revived petition to be decided on its own merits on the remaining issues. No order as to costs.

¶1

32-3157-2025-WP=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3157 OF 2025

¶4

Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi .. Petitioner Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(2), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Devendra H. Jain a/w Shashank A. Mehta i/b Ashwin S. Jain, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶6

Ms. Sushma Nagaraj a/w Abhinav Palsikar, Advocates for the Respondents.

¶7

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2025.08.1614:58:48 +0530

¶8

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2025.

¶9

P. C.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Aswale

¶13

Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 12, 2025

¶14

32-3157-2025-WP=.doc

¶15

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)] .

¶16

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) .

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

7. We however grant liberty to the Revenue to revive the above Writ Petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd

¶20

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 12, 2025

¶21

Aswale

¶22

32-3157-2025-WP=.doc

¶23

(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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

¶28

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶29

Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 12, 2025

¶30

Aswale

Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41-2-2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswantlal Chhotalal Doshi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 41-2-2

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

Kalikund Developers vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 17-2-1

V R Constructors Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8

Bhavin Ajaykumar Narshana vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(1)(1) Mumbai

Roshan Industrial Corporation vs Income Tax Officer Ward 23 3 6

Tulika Maheshwari vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

Roshan Industrial Corporation vs Income Tax Officer Ward 19 3 1