Allowed¶9

Master Forms Private Limited v. Income tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1)

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/333/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; faceless assessment; jurisdictional Assessing Officer cannot issue s.148 notice; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; notice and consequential proceedings set aside; Rule absolute; revival of writ petition by Praecipe if Supreme Court reverses Hexaware (challenge pending, no stay); no costs. Parties: Master Forms Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1) & Others.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof: the impugned Section 148 Notice and all consequential proceedings/orders set aside; liberty to the Revenue to seek revival by Praecipe if Hexaware Technologies Ltd is set aside by the Supreme Court; no order as to costs. ¶9

Master Forms Private Limited vs Income tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1) — 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 issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is fatally defective and must be quashed.

¶2

Court's answer

Since the validity issue was fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, the Court considered itself bound to follow it rather than keep the matter pending.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

In accordance with the Hexaware decision, the Court set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 together with all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.

¶6

Key takeaways

Liberty reserved to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition by moving a simple Praecipe (without filing a separate Interim Application) if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision on this issue; upon revival the Petition would be decided afresh on its merits, several other issues having been raised.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Coram B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., 16 July 2025 — Writ Petition by Master Forms Pvt. Ltd. challenging a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although the law mandates issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer. The Petitioner invoked 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); the Revenue's advocate acknowledged the issue was concluded by Hexaware but noted the decision stood challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with no stay. Holding itself bound by Hexaware, the Court did not keep the matter pending, set aside the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the Petition, with no order as to costs. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek revival of the Petition simply by Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware on this issue; on revival, the Petition would be decided on its own merits as several other grounds challenging the Notice were raised. (Interim stay of the Section 148 Notice had been operating since Rule was issued on 10 February 2025.)

¶1

36-wp-333-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.333 OF 2025

¶4

Master Forms Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Digitally signed by SMITA SMITA RAJNIKANT RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date:2025.07.21 13:42:05 +0530

¶7

Income Tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1) & Others

¶8

Adv. Shashi Bekal, for the Petitioner.

¶9

.. Respondents.

¶10

Adv. Shilpa Goel with Adv. Ashikh Kumar , for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶12

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 16, 2025

¶13

P. C.

¶14

1 In the above Petition Rule was issued on 10^th February 2025 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.

¶15

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 3 JULY 16, 2025

¶16

S.R.JOSHI

¶17

36-wp-333-2025.doc

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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)] .

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Page 2 of 3 JULY 16, 2025

¶24

S.R.JOSHI

¶25

36-wp-333-2025.doc

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

Page 3 of 3 JULY 16, 2025

¶33

S.R.JOSHI

Master Forms Private Limited v. Income tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Forms Private Limited v. Income tax Officer Ward 12(3)(1)

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

Nirali Parekh and 2 Ors. vs Kishore Vrajlal Soni

Vithabai Sitaram Birje vs Anant Sitaram Birje and Anr.

The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. and Anr. vs Ravi Goenka

Emkay Exports vs Income tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1)

Kaarya Facilities and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Usha Martin Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra