Mahendra Punjarao Kalyankar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Mahendra Punjarao Kalyankar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Rule made absolute and the Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof; liberty to the Revenue to revive the Petition by moving a Praecipe (without a separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was fatally defective because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, warranting quashing. +1 more

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

Since the issue raised in the Petition is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow that decision and will not keep the matter pending, notwithstanding the pending SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the absence of any stay on the Hexaware judgment.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted 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.obiter¶7
Revival of the Petition requires no separate Interim Application; the Revenue can simply move a Praecipe before the Court.obiter¶7
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 of this Petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 4967 of 2024, decided 29 July 2025: The Petitioner challenged a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that it had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer — contended to be a fatal defect requiring quashing — relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)] (Division Bench of this Court). The Revenue conceded the issue was concluded by Hexaware but noted the decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (SLP likely to be taken up immediately on re-opening), while fairly stating there was no stay on the Hexaware judgment. Held: as the matter is fully covered by Hexaware, which the Court is bound to follow, it would not keep the matter pending; the impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside; Rule was made absolute and the Writ Petition disposed of, with no order as to costs. Liberty was reserved to the Revenue to revive the Petition — simply by moving a Praecipe, no separate Interim Application being necessary — if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision on this issue; if the SLP is dismissed, there would be no question of revival; and, if revived and restored, the Petition would be decided on its own merits, several other issues challenging the Notice remaining unadjudicated.

72-4967-2024-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4967 OF 2024

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAYSHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.02 12:27:25 +0530

Mahendra Punjarao Kalyankar .. Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Devendra Jain a/w Shashank A. Mehta i/b Radha Halbe, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Rattesar a/w Ms. Kiran Singh, Advocates for the Respondents.

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

P. C.

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.

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

Page 1 of 3 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

72-4967-2024-WP=.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 immediately on re-opening. 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 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

72-4967-2024-WP=.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 JULY 29, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap