Allowed¶9

Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

Bombay HC22 Sept 2025WP/4966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice quashed; faceless assessment; jurisdictional assessing officer vs faceless assessing officer; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; no stay on Hexaware; SLP before Supreme Court; revival of writ petition by Praecipe; stay on notice upon revival; Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 4966 of 2024; Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar v/s ITO Ward-34(2)(1) Mumbai; rule made absolute; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; conditional liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition by Praecipe if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), with a stay on the operation and implementation of the notice upon revival; no order as to costs. ¶9

Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, suffers a fatal defect such that the Notice must be quashed.

¶2

Court's answer

The matter is fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), and this Court is bound to follow it; the Court declined to keep the matter pending notwithstanding that the Hexaware decision is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue having fairly stated that there is no stay to that judgment.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, are set aside.

¶6

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition, without filing a separate Interim Application and simply by moving a Praecipe, in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue; upon revival, the operation and implementation of the impugned Section 148 notice shall stand stayed until further orders; if the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there is no question of revival.ratio¶7
If the Petition is revived and restored, it shall be decided on its own merits, since several other issues challenging the Section 148 Notice were raised but not adjudicated in this order.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax — Notice under Section 148, Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — Writ petition held squarely covered by the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) — Revenue conceded the issue was concluded by Hexaware and that there is no stay of that judgment, though it is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court — Court bound to follow Hexaware; impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside — Liberty to Revenue to revive the petition by mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed) if Hexaware is set aside by the Supreme Court; on revival, operation and implementation of the notice to remain stayed until further orders; no revival if the SLP against Hexaware is dismissed — Revived petition to be decided afresh on its own merits, several other grounds against the notice remaining open — Rule made absolute, petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-OS:16652-DB

¶2

31.wp.4966.2024.doc

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4966 OF 2024

¶5

Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Tanzil Padvekar a/w Tejal Kharkar , Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Ravi Rattesar , Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶11

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 18^th November 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

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

¶15

Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025

¶16

Darshan Patil

¶17

31.wp.4966.2024.doc

¶18

Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner.

¶19

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)] .

¶20

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) .

¶21

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.

¶22

6. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.

¶23

Page 2 of 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025

¶24

Darshan Patil

¶25

31.wp.4966.2024.doc

¶26

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 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025

¶32

Darshan Patil

¶33

Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2025 18:03:07

Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar v. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Pune vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 4 vs Blue Square Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Cgst and C Ex Pune I Commissionerate vs Neo Sannyas Foundation

Rameshchandra Kantilal Shah vs Income Tax Officer 41 3 3

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 6 2, Mumbai

Bhupendra C Dalal vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2