Disposed¶28

Manojkumar Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

Bombay HC12 Aug 2025WP/5129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; Income Tax Act 1961; faceless assessment; Faceless Assessing Officer vs Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) - followed; notice set aside; revival liberty via Praecipe pending Supreme Court SLP; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs; interim stay of Section 148 notice since 10 February 2025; Bombay High Court OOCJ; Writ Petition 5129 of 2024; Manojkumar Maheshwari; ACIT Circle 22(1) Mumbai; Gautam Thakkar for petitioner; Mamta Omle for Revenue.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; writ petition disposed of; liberty to Revenue to revive via Praecipe if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision; no order as to costs. ¶28

Manojkumar Maheshwari vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the mandated Faceless Assessing Officer, suffers a fatal defect and must be quashed. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The question whether the Section 148 Notice had to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer rather than the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is fully covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), and this Court is bound to follow it.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

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

¶22

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition, by simply moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed), if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP against Hexaware, there is no question of any revival.obiter¶26
If the petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, considering the several other issues raised challenging the Section 148 Notice.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 5129 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (OOCJ), decided 12 August 2025 (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.) - Manojkumar Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) Mumbai & Ors. The petition challenged a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inter alia on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer - urged to be a fatal defect requiring quashal. Finding the issue squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), by which the Court was bound (the Revenue conceding there was no stay despite an SLP before the Supreme Court), the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made Rule absolute and disposed of the petition with no order as to costs. Liberty was reserved to the Revenue to revive the petition by a mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision on this issue; if revived, the petition is to be decided afresh on its own merits on the several other issues raised; no revival if the SLP is dismissed.

¶1

10.wp.5129.2024.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5129 OF 2024

¶4

Manojkumar Maheshwari

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Gautam Thakkar a/w Roshan Sawant, Kaustubh Patil i/b Jinal K. Shah , Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Mamta Omle , Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

Digitally signed ANJALI by ANJALITUSHAR TUSHAR ASWALE ASWALE Date: 2025.08.1613:19:49 +0530

¶11

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 12, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

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.

¶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

¶15

Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 12, 2025

¶16

Aswale

¶17

10.wp.5129.2024.doc

¶18

Faceless Assessing 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 AUGUST 12, 2025

¶24

Aswale

¶25

10.wp.5129.2024.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 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

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶31

Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 12, 2025

¶32

Aswale

Manojkumar Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manojkumar Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

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

Kalikund Developers vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 17-2-1

V R Constructors Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8

Bhavin Ajaykumar Narshana vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(1)(1) Mumbai

Roshan Industrial Corporation vs Income Tax Officer Ward 23 3 6

Tulika Maheshwari vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax

Roshan Industrial Corporation vs Income Tax Officer Ward 19 3 1