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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute; impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; writ petition disposed of, with liberty to the Revenue to revive it by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra); no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — challenged on several grounds, including that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer — is fatally defective and must be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The challenge to the Section 148 Notice on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra); the Court is bound to follow it and does not propose to keep the matter pending.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue.ratio¶7
Revival requires no separate Interim Application; the Revenue may seek it simply by moving a Praecipe before the Court.ratio¶7
If the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the Hexaware decision, there would be no question of revival.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (B.P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.; 4 August 2025), Writ Petition No. 444 of 2025 — Access Diamond Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai & Ors. Though listed under the caption 'for directions', the petition — challenging a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on several grounds, including that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer (characterised by the Petitioner as a fatal defect warranting quashing) — was heard finally with the consent of parties (Rule had been issued on 21.01.2025 with interim stay of the Notice). The Court found the point fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which the Revenue conceded was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but without any stay, and held itself bound to follow it. Accordingly, the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside; Rule was made absolute and the petition disposed of with no order as to costs. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the petition by merely moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware on this issue; if the SLP is dismissed, there would be no question of revival; and on any revival the petition is to be decided afresh on its own merits, several other challenges to the Notice remaining open.

90.wp.444.2025.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.444 OF 2025

Access Diamond Pvt Ltd .. Petitioner

Versus

UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO

Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2025.08.11 15:14:41 +0530

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai & Ors.

.. Respondents

Ms. Rutuja Pawar (through V.C.) a/w Hetal Laghave, Sneha More , Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Suresh Kumar , Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 4, 2025

P. C.

1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 21^st January 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.

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

Aswale

Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 4, 2025

90.wp.444.2025.doc

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 shortly. The learned Counsel for the Revenue 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.

Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 4, 2025

Aswale

90.wp.444.2025.doc

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. 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 AUGUST 4, 2025

Aswale