Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani v. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(3) Pune
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.07.10 17:32:10 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 9066 OF 2025 Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani .. Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 8(3), Pune & Ors.
.. Respondents Adv. Sanket Suhas Bora a/w. Adv. Arrchena Shetty a/w. Adv. Vidhi Punmiya i/b. Adv. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for the Petitioner. None for Respondents.
CORAM:
B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE:
P. C.
1.
Not on board. Mentioned. At the request of the Petitioner taken on board.
2.
The above praecipe has been moved for speaking to the minutes of the Order dated 8th July, 2025.
3.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has stated that the appearance for the Petitioner needs to be corrected, as more particularly set out in the said order .
4.
Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it is directed that in the appearance column, appearance for the Petitioner shall be replaced by "Mr. Sanket Suhas Bora a/w. Adv. Arrchena Sehtty a/w. Ms. Vidhi Punmiya i/b. Adv. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for the Petitioner." No other corrections are sought. The correction shall be carried out in the original order as well as in the copy uploaded on the server. 5.
This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] For the sake of convenience the order dated 8th July, 2025 (as corrected) is reproduced hereunder :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9066 OF 2025 Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani .. Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3) Pune & Ors.
.. Respondents Mr.Sanket Suhas Bora a/w. Adv. Arrchena Shetty a/w. Adv. Vidhi Punmiya i/b. Adv. Deepak Sharma, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Vikas Khanchandani, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM:
B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE:
JULY 08, 2025 P. C.
1.
Rule. Respondents waive service.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard 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 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. He 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.
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.
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 [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]