Deepa Pradeep Deshpande vs The Income Tax Officer Ward — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Deepa Pradeep Deshpande vs The Income Tax Officer Ward — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute; the impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition by a Praecipe if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (revived petition to be decided on its own merits); no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

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

Once the issue is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), the Court is bound to follow it and does not propose to keep the matter pending.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the writ petition, by simply moving a Praecipe (without a separate Interim Application), in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this issue.ratio¶23
If the petition is revived and restored, it will have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues challenging the Section 148 Notice were also raised.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 - SECTION 148 NOTICE - ISSUANCE BY JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF FACELESS ASSESSING OFFICER. Writ Petition No. 5469 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, OOCJ; B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.; July 21, 2025): Petitioner (assessee Deepa Pradeep Deshpande) challenged the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that it had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas, as contended, the law mandated issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer - urged as a fatal defect requiring quashing. Petitioner relied on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); the Revenue conceded the issue was concluded by that decision but noted it was under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with no stay of the judgment. Holding the issue fully covered, the Court stated it was bound to follow Hexaware and declined to keep the matter pending; it accordingly set aside the impugned Section 148 Notice and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. The Revenue was granted liberty to revive the petition by simply moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required) in the event the Supreme Court sets Hexaware aside on this issue, and it was clarified that a revived petition would be decided on its own merits, several other grounds against the Notice remaining open. Rule made absolute; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

28-5469-2024-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 5469 OF 2024

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.07.23 11:22:45 +0530

Deepa Pradeep Deshpande .. Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Ansh Agal i/b Jain Law Partners, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Ms. Mamta Omle, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JULY 21, 2025

P. C.

1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 5^th May 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.

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 21, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

28-5469-2024-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. She 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 21, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap

28-5469-2024-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.

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 21, 2025

Uday S. Jagtap