Allowed

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-3(2)(1)

Bombay HC29 Sept 2025WP/3615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 income tax notice issued by a Jurisdictional rather than Faceless Assessing Officer. Following the binding Hexaware Technologies decision, the court set aside the notice and consequential proceedings, with liberty to revive if reversed by the Supreme Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited vs Assistant… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

2.os wp.3615.24doc

¶2

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

¶3

VINAARVINDKHADPE Digitallysigned byVINA ARVINDKHADPEDate:2025.10.0312:58:14+0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3615 OF 2024

¶5

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi [Through VC] a/w Ms. Aanchal Vyas , Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vipul Bajpayee , Advocate for the Respondents/Revenue.

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 23rd September 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.

¶14

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 Page 1 of 4 SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

¶15

Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno

¶16

2.os wp.3615.24doc

¶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 Petitioner’s 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 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).

¶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

Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno

¶22

Page 2 of 4 SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

¶23

2.os wp.3615.24doc

¶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 further ordered that in the event the above Petition is revived, there will be a stay to the operation and implementation of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 until further orders. 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

Page 3 of 4 SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

¶28

Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno

¶29

2.os wp.3615.24doc

¶30

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.

¶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

[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶33

Page 4 of 4 SEPTEMBER 29, 2025

¶34

Santosh Chabukswar- Court Steno

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-3(2)(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maccaferri Environmental Solutions Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-3(2)(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vodafone India Services Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Circle 8 3 1Mumbai

Vodafone India Services Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Circle 8 3 1 Mumbai

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Circle 8 3 1 Mumbai

Citibank N a vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 2 1 1 Mumbai

Enam Holdings Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 1 1 Mumbai

Swaminarayan Mandir Trust Ltd. 2018 19 vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai