Nirmala MADAN-2017-18 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Nirmala MADAN-2017-18 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof; no order as to costs; liberty to the Revenue to revive the Petition by simply moving a Praecipe (without a separate Interim Application) if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; a revived petition to be decided afresh on its own merits on the other outstanding issues.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 suffers a fatal defect because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, warranting that the Notice be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Once revived and restored, the petition would have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues raising challenges to the Section 148 Notice remain to be adjudicated.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra); being bound to follow that decision, the Court declines to keep the matter pending.

Key takeaways

The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom are set aside.ratio¶23
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; no separate Interim Application is necessary and revival can be sought simply by moving a Praecipe before this Court.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction - Writ Petition No. 3349 of 2024 (Nirmala Madan v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.), decided 15-07-2025 by B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. Rule had been issued on 23-10-2024 with interim relief staying the Notice under Section 148, Income Tax Act 1961; though listed 'for direction', the matter was heard finally with consent of parties. The ground advanced was that the Notice, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas the law mandates issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer, suffered a fatal defect and had to be quashed - an issue said to be squarely covered by Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) (Division Bench, Bombay). The Revenue conceded the issue stood concluded by that decision but noted it is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (likely to be taken up on re-opening), with no stay of the judgment. Holding itself bound by Hexaware, the Court declined to keep the matter pending, set aside the impugned Section 148 Notice together with 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 revive the petition by simply moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) should the Supreme Court set aside Hexaware on this issue, and it was clarified that any revived petition would fall to be decided on its own merits, several other objections to the Notice remaining open.

7.wp.3349.2024.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.3349 OF 2024

Nirmala Madan .. Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2025.07.17 10:31:45 +0530

Ms.Radha Halbe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 15, 2025

P. C.

1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 23^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 direction”, we have, with the consent of parties, heard it 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 Page 1 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

Utkarsh

7.wp.3349.2024.doc

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.

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) .

Page 2 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

Utkarsh

7.wp.3349.2024.doc

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.

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.

Page 3 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

Utkarsh

7.wp.3349.2024.doc

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 4 of 4 JULY 15, 2025

Utkarsh