Sanghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Sanghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; no order as to costs. Liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the Petition by simply moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; no question of revival if the SLP is dismissed; any revived Petition to be decided on its own merits considering the several other issues raised against the Notice.

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 when the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the issue was fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (which the Revenue confirmed remains unstayed despite being challenged before the Supreme Court), the Court was bound to follow it and did not propose to keep the matter pending.

Ratio / Principle

Following Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, OOCJ (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), July 29, 2025 — WRIT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2025, Saghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai & Ors. The Petition challenged a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inter alia on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — contended to be a fatal defect. The Court found the issue squarely covered by 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)]; although the Revenue stated that decision is challenged before the Supreme Court, it fairly conceded there is no stay. Declaring itself bound to follow Hexaware, the Court 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. Revival liberty was reserved to the Revenue by mere Praecipe (without a separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware; no revival lies if the SLP is dismissed; any revived Petition is to be decided afresh on all grounds, including the other issues raised against the Notice.

61-37-2025-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 37 OF 2025

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.02 12:27:58 +0530

Saghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner

Versus

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Ms. Rutuja Pawar a/w Mr. Hetal Laghave, Ms. Sneha More, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Suresh Kumar , Advocates for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 2025.

P. C.

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

Page 1 of 3 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

61-37-2025-WP=.doc

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) .

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

Page 2 of 3 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

61-37-2025-WP=.doc

(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.

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.

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 3 of 3 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap