Kiran Haribhai Patel vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Kiran Haribhai Patel vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Writ Petition disposed of in terms thereof with no order as to costs; liberty to the Revenue to seek revival by a bare Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Hon'ble Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), with no revival if the SLP is dismissed, and, upon revival, fresh decision on all grounds on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates that it be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, suffers a fatal defect so that the Notice has to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the issue (issue of the Section 148 Notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer) is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow that decision and does not propose to keep the matter pending, notwithstanding that the said decision is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is no stay of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

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

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, if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; if the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging that decision, there would be no question of any revival; if revived and restored, the Petition would be decided on its own merits considering the several other issues raised.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, OOCJ (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 4972 of 2024 — Kiran Haribhai Patel v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai & Ors. (decided July 29, 2025): Petitioner challenged a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, contending that its issue by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when the law mandates issue by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a fatal defect requiring quashing. The Revenue conceded the issue stood concluded by Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], a Division Bench decision under challenge before the Supreme Court with no stay. Holding itself bound to follow that decision and declining to keep the matter pending, the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom; 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 a bare Praecipe (without a separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware, with no revival if the SLP is dismissed; upon revival the Petition is to be decided on its own merits, several other challenges to the Notice remaining undecided.

73-4972-2024-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4972 OF 2024

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.02 13:30:53 +0530

Kiran Haribhai Patel .. Petitioner

Versus

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

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

Ms. Mamta Omle , Advocate 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

73-4972-2024-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

73-4972-2024-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