Allowed¶28

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1)

Bombay HC3 Feb 2025WP/5466/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 Income Tax Act notice; issuance by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer held fatal; Hexaware Technologies Ltd ((2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)) followed; Hexaware under challenge before Supreme Court, no stay; Court declined to defer; Notice and consequential proceedings set aside; Rule made absolute, writ petition disposed; liberty to Revenue to revive by Praecipe if Hexaware reversed; no costs. WP 5466 of 2024, decided 30-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Section 148 Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Rule made absolute and the Writ Petition disposed of; liberty to Revenue to revive the petition by a Praecipe if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Supreme Court; no order as to costs. ¶28

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is vitiated because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the mandated Faceless Assessing Officer, and therefore has to be quashed. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The issue raised in the petition is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), and this Court is bound to follow that decision.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Even though the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision has been challenged before the Supreme Court (with no stay of that judgment), the Court declined to keep the present petition pending on that account.

¶21

Key takeaways

The impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom are set aside.ratio¶25
Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the petition if the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision is set aside by the Supreme Court, simply by moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed); if the Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging that decision, there would be no question of revival.ratio¶26
If the petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues were also raised challenging the Section 148 Notice.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. (30 July 2025): A Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer was decided forthwith with consent. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which fully covered the issue and to which the Court held itself bound notwithstanding that the decision stands challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court (with no stay in place), the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. Rule was made absolute and the petition disposed of without costs, with liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition merely by moving a Praecipe (and not a separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside the Hexaware decision; if the SLP is dismissed there would be no question of revival, and any revived petition would be heard afresh on its own merits on the several other grounds raised against the Notice.

¶1

55.5466.24-wp.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.08.02 13:59:40 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5466 OF 2024

¶5

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Ltd. .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.Harsh Kapadia i/b Mr.Atul K. Jasani, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Abhishek Mishra, Advocate for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 30, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the

¶13

parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶14

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

¶15

Mohite

¶16

Page 1 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶17

55.5466.24-wp.doc

¶18

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

¶19

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

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 has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra).

¶21

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

Page 2 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶23

Mohite

¶24

55.5466.24-wp.doc

¶25

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

¶26

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶30

Mohite

¶31

55.5466.24-wp.doc

¶32

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.

¶33

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

¶34

[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶35

Page 4 of 4 JULY 30, 2025

¶36

Mohite

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1)

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

The Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd. and Anr. vs Ravi Goenka

Vitthal Chintaman Paradkar vs Reji Varghese S/O. P.J.Varghese

Sushma Sukumar Samanta vs Jayabala Wd/O Ashok Suryakant Zaveri Lh of Ashok Suryakant (Since Deceased) and 2 Ors.

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (2020 21) vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited (2021 22) vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai