Allowed¶29

Emkay Exports v. Income tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1)

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/420/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act 1961 notice; jurisdictional assessing officer vs faceless assessing officer; fatal defect; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; no stay despite Supreme Court challenge; notice set aside; rule made absolute; writ petition allowed and disposed; liberty to Revenue to revive by Praecipe; Bombay High Court OOJC WP 420 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the Revenue to seek revival by Praecipe if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) on this issue; no order as to costs ¶29

Emkay Exports vs Income tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1) — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

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

¶19

Court's answer

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

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since the matter is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow it and does not propose to keep the matter pending

¶22

Key takeaways

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, without filing a separate Interim Application, simply by moving a Praecipe before the Courtratio¶27
If the Petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues are also raised challenging the Notice issued under Section 148ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOJC), Writ Petition No.420 of 2025 (Emkay Exports v. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1) & Others), Coram B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., decided 16 July 2025. Writ petition 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 issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer. Held: the issue is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which the Court was bound to follow (the Revenue conceding the decision binds it and that there is no stay thereof, though it is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court). The impugned notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside; rule made absolute and the petition disposed of, with no order as to costs. Liberty reserved to the Revenue to revive the petition (by Praecipe, without a separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware on this issue, in which event the petition would be decided on its own merits on the several other grounds raised.

¶1

38-wp-420-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2025

Emkay Exports

.. Petitioner.

Versus

Income Tax Officer Ward 24 (1) (1) & Others .. Respondents.

¶8

Adv. Shashi Bekal, for the Petitioner.

¶9

SMITA Digitally signed bySMITA RAJNIKANT RAJNIKANT JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2025.07.2113:37:56 +0530

¶10

Adv. Mamta Omle, for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

¶12

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

38-wp-420-2025.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

38-wp-420-2025.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

Emkay Exports v. Income tax Officer Ward 24(1)(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emkay Exports v. Income tax Officer Ward 24(1)(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

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

Usha Martin Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

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