Popat Yadavrao Ingale vs Income Tax Officer Ward Silvassa Silvasa and Ors.

1. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that there is a mistake in the cause title of Respondent No.2. It is stated that Respondent No.2 is actually “the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range Valsad” and not the “Joint Commissioner of Income, Range Valsad, Mumbai”. She, therefore, sought leave to correct the name of Respondent No.2.

¶14

Utkarsh

¶15

Page 1 of 5 JANUARY 21, 2026

¶16

13.wp.474.2026.doc

¶17

2. Considering this is a just formal amendment, the name of

¶18

Respondent No.2 shall be substituted as follows:-

¶19

“ JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE Valsad ”

¶20

3. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith in front of

¶21

the Associate. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶22

4. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶23

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

¶24

6. It is the Petitioner’s 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

¶25

Page 2 of 5 JANUARY 21, 2026

¶26

Utkarsh

¶27

13.wp.474.2026.doc

¶28

Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2)[(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)] .

¶29

7. 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 shortly. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra).

¶30

8. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

10. 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

¶33

Utkarsh

¶34

Page 3 of 5 JANUARY 21, 2026

¶35

13.wp.474.2026.doc

¶36

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 further ordered that in the event the above Petition is revived, there will be a stay to the operation and implementation of the impugned notice issued under Section 148 until further orders. 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.

¶37

11. 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.

¶38

12. 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.

¶39

Page 4 of 5 JANUARY 21, 2026

¶40

Utkarsh

¶41

13.wp.474.2026.doc

¶42

13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/

¶43

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.