Ankit Mahesh Shah vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

Ankit Mahesh Shah vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute and Writ Petition disposed of: impugned Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; liberty to the Revenue to seek revival by Praecipe if the Hexaware decision is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer suffers a fatal defect such that it has to be quashed (Petitioner's contention, contending the issue is covered by the Hexaware Technologies Ltd decision). +1 more

Court's answer

This Court held itself bound to follow the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), which fully covers the Petitioner's contention regarding the Section 148 Notice, and declined to keep the matter pending notwithstanding the pending challenge to that decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

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 in the event the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by simply moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application required); if the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging that decision, there would be no question of any revival.ratio¶23
If the Petition is revived and restored, it would have to be decided on its own merits, since several other issues challenging the Notice issued under Section 148 were raised but remain undecided by reason of the disposal on the Hexaware point alone.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Writ Petition No. 570 of 2025 (Coram: B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.; decided July 29, 2025). Writ petition by Ankit Mahesh Shah challenging a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground (inter alia) that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the law mandates issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer — a contended fatal defect. The Court noted the issue was squarely covered by its Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); the Revenue conceded the issue stood concluded and that no stay operated against that decision despite an SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Holding itself bound to follow Hexaware, the Court set aside the impugned Notice and all proceedings/orders emanating therefrom, made the Rule absolute, disposed of the Petition, and left costs untouched. Liberty was reserved to the Revenue to revive the Petition by a mere Praecipe (no separate Interim Application) if the Supreme Court sets aside Hexaware on this issue; dismissal of the SLP forecloses revival; any revived Petition is to be decided afresh on its own merits, other grounds against the Notice remaining open.

8-570-2025-WP=.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 570 OF 2025

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAYSHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.08.02 12:27:21 +0530

Ankit Mahesh Shah .. Petitioner Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(4)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Nishit M. Gandhi (through VC) a/w Aadnya C. Bhandari, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Rattesar , 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 25^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.

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

8-570-2025-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

8-570-2025-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