Disposed¶27

Ashok Vidyut Firm v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2025WP/7725/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 IT Act notice; faceless assessment; CBDT Scheme dated 29.03.2022; Section 151A; Jurisdictional Assessing Officer vs Faceless Assessing Officer; A.Y. 2022-23; interim stay of notice; Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay); Hexaware under challenge before Supreme Court pending; rule issued; interim relief; Bombay High Court writ petition 2025.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued with respondents waiving service; interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c), staying operation of the Notice under Section 148 dated 27.03.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23 pending hearing and final disposal of the petition; liberty to the parties after the Supreme Court's orders/final decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra); Revenue to file Affidavit-in-Reply within 12 weeks. ¶27

Ashok Vidyut Firm vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Solapur and Ors. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-23 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer contemplated by the CBDT Scheme dated 29.03.2022 under Section 151A) is valid.

¶13

Court's answer

This Court agreed with, and considered itself bound by, the view in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) (paragraph Nos. 32 to 39) that a notice under Section 148 must be issued as per the CBDT Scheme dated 29.03.2022 by the Faceless Assessing Officer, and that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Rule was issued in the writ petition and the Respondents waived service.

¶26

Key takeaways

Interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (c): the operation of the Notice under Section 148 dated 27.03.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23 is stayed pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, since the Hexaware decision is under challenge before the Supreme Court and is pending.ratio¶27
Liberty was reserved to the parties to apply after appropriate orders are passed by the Supreme Court or a final decision is rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra).ratio¶30
The Revenue was directed to file its Affidavit-in-Reply to the writ petition within 12 weeks and serve a copy on the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.), Writ Petition No. 7725 of 2025, decided 17 June 2025 — Ashok Vidyut (Firm) v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Solapur & Ors.: The petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23 solely on the ground that it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer under the CBDT Scheme dated 29.03.2022 issued under Section 151A of the IT Act. Relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) (paragraph Nos. 32 to 39), the Court agreed with and considered itself bound by the view that Section 148 notices must be issued per the CBDT Scheme by the Faceless Assessing Officer, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction. Because the Hexaware decision is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is pending, Rule was issued and interim relief granted staying operation of the notice pending hearing and final disposal; liberty was reserved to the parties to apply after the Supreme Court passes appropriate orders or renders a final decision in Hexaware; and the Revenue was directed to file its Affidavit-in-Reply within 12 weeks.

¶1

172.wp.7725.2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7725 OF 2025

¶4

Digitally signed by UDAY UDAY SHIVAJI SHIVAJI JAGTAP JAGTAP Date:2025.06.21 10:50:01 +0530

¶5

Ashok Vidyut [Firm] .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Solapur & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Ms. Rutuja Pawar a/w Mr. Hetal Laghave, Ms. Sneha More, Advocates for the Petitioner .

¶8

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents - Revenue

¶9

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶10

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

¶11

DATE: JUNE 17, 2025.

¶12

P. C.

¶13

The above Writ Petition takes exception to the Notice issued by the Revenue dated 27^th March 2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “ IT Act ”) for the A.Y. 2022-23. The only ground of challenge to the said Notice is that Notice under Section 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer, as

¶14

Page 1 of 4 JUNE 17, 2025

¶15

Uday S. Jagtap

¶16

172.wp.7725.2025.doc

¶17

contemplated under the Scheme dated 29^th March 2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) under Section 151A of the IT Act.

¶18

In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) ].

¶19

On perusing this decision and more particularly paragraph Nos. 32 to 39 thereof, we find that this Court has specifically held that the Notice to be issued under Section 148 would have to be as per the Scheme floated by the CBDT dated 29^th March 2022 and would have to be by the Faceless Assessing Officer. This Court has specifically held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would have no jurisdiction to issue the Notice under Section 148. We not only agree with this view but are bound by it.

¶20

Be that as it may, since it was pointed out to us that the decision in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same is pending, rather than driving the Revenue to challenge even this order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we

¶21

Page 2 of 4 JUNE 17, 2025

¶22

Uday S. Jagtap

¶23

172.wp.7725.2025.doc

¶24

are of the view that it would be more prudent if Rule is issued in the above Petition and interim relief is granted pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition.

¶25

In these circumstances, we pass the following order :-

¶26

(a) Rule. The Respondents waive service;

¶27

(b) There shall be interim relief in terms prayer clause (c), which reads thus:-

¶28

“(c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the said Notice under Section 148 dated 27.03.2025 for A.Y. 2022-23.”

¶29

(c) Liberty to the parties to apply after appropriate orders are

¶30

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or a final decision is rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware

¶31

Technologies Ltd. (supra) .

¶32

The Revenue is directed to file their Affidavit-in-Reply to the above Writ Petition within a period of 12 weeks from today and serve a copy on the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶33

Page 3 of 4 JUNE 17, 2025

¶34

Uday S. Jagtap

¶35

172.wp.7725.2025.doc

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

Page 4 of 4 JUNE 17, 2025

¶39

Uday S. Jagtap

Ashok Vidyut Firm v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Vidyut Firm v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Solapur and Ors.

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

Commissioner of Cgst Mumbai West vs J P Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Cgst Mumbai West vs J P Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Cgst Mumbai West vs J P Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd.

Ramchandra Laxman Jagdale vs Wrsr Power Transmission Ltd. Throu. Sanjivkumar Singh and Ors.

Vitthal Manu Shirawale and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sanjay Chindha Shewale vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2 (1) Nashik and Ors.