Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nanaso Managiri Pujari vs Income-Tax Officer,Ward-1 , Sangli And ... on 30 July, 2025

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

 2025:BHC-AS:32876-DB


                                                                                       97.7582.25-wp.doc



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
       Digitally
       signed by
       TRUSHA
TRUSHA TUSHAR                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
       2025.08.02
       13:59:24
                                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 7582 OF 2025
       +0530


                    Nanaso Managini Pujari                                      .. Petitioner

                              Versus

                    Income Tax Officer, Sangli & Ors.                           .. Respondents

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

                         Mr.Arjun Gupta, Advocate for Respondent.

                                       CORAM:               B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                            FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
                                       DATE:                JULY 30, 2025

                    P. C.



1. In the above Petition Rule was issued on 17 th June 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 Page 1 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 22:44:11 ::: 97.7582.25-wp.doc 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.

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 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. Page 2 of 4

JULY 30, 2025 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 22:44:11 ::: 97.7582.25-wp.doc

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

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. Page 3 of 4

JULY 30, 2025 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 22:44:11 ::: 97.7582.25-wp.doc

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 4 of 4 JULY 30, 2025 Mohite ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2025 22:44:11 :::