Allowed¶27

Sree Kamatchi Construction v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 41(1)(1) Mumbai

Bombay HC4 Mar 2025WP/714/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice set aside; faceless assessment; notice by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer vs Faceless Assessing Officer; Hexaware Technologies Ltd (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) followed; Income Tax Act 1961; revival liberty via Praecipe if Supreme Court reverses Hexaware; no costs; Bombay High Court OOCJ; WP 714 of 2025; Sree Kamatchi Construction v. ACIT Circle 41(1)(1) Mumbai.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned Notice under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom set aside; Writ Petition disposed of; no order as to costs; liberty to the Revenue to revive the petition by moving a Praecipe if Hexaware Technologies Ltd is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ¶27

Sree Kamatchi Construction vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stands vitiated because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas the law mandated issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer, warranting quashing of the Notice.

¶17

Court's answer

The ground that the Section 148 notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is fully covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), which this Court is bound to follow.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

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

¶24

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to the Revenue to revive the Writ Petition, without filing a separate Interim Application, simply by moving a Praecipe if the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; once revived and restored, the petition is to be decided on its own merits considering the several other issues raised against the Section 148 notice.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No.714 of 2025, decided 14 July 2025 (Coram: B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.) — Petitioner challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on several grounds, principally that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer although the law mandated issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer. Held: the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), which remains un-stayed despite being carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court is bound to follow it. The impugned Section 148 notice and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom were set aside; Rule made absolute; Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs. Liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the petition by merely moving a Praecipe (no separate Interim Application needed) if Hexaware is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; upon revival the petition is to be decided afresh on its own merits on all the other grounds raised.

¶1

18 wp714-25.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.07.17 15:14:47 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2025

¶5

Sree Kamatchi Construction .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(1)(1), Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Mr.Ravi Rattesar, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 14, 2025

¶11

P. C.

¶12

In the above Petition Rule was issued on 4^th March 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.

¶13

The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various grounds. One of the Page 1 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

¶14

Mohite

¶15

18 wp714-25.doc

¶16

grounds is that the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing

¶17

Officer when the law mandates that it has to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner.

¶18

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)] .

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Mohite

¶22

Page 2 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

¶23

18 wp714-25.doc

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Page 3 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

¶29

Mohite

¶30

18 wp714-25.doc

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 4 of 4 JULY 14, 2025

¶34

Mohite

Sree Kamatchi Construction v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 41(1)(1) Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Kamatchi Construction v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 41(1)(1) Mumbai

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

M Ramzan and Company vs Union of India

Pinakin Soda vs Principal Commissioner Ra and Ex Offico Additional Secretary to the Government of India

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited 2018 19 vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

Trucap Finance Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(3)(1)

Vento Power Generation LLP vs Income Tax Officer 20(3)(1), Mumbai

Periwinkle Construction Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai