Vasanta Motiram Chaudhary v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (4), Nagpur And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:14155-DB 919.WP.7959.2025.odt 1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 7959 OF 2025 Vasanta Motiram Chaudhary Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur & Ors.

__________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

Dr. Milind M. Bhusari, Advocate with Ms. Mrudul R. Bhusari, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 12 th DECEMBER, 2025.

Heard.

2.

Issue notice.

3.

Mr. Anand Parchure, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of respondents.

4.

The argument is that the matter is covered by the judgment in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)] and that in various other matters, taking cognizance of said judgment, this Court has passed order. The same course should be followed in the present matter. The counsel for respondents would agree to such proposition.

5.

The writ petition herein challenges, inter alia, the validity of the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income

919.WP.7959.2025.odt 2/3 Tax Act, 1961, on various grounds. One such ground contends that the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the statutory law mandates that such Notice must be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioner asserts that this constitutes a fundamental defect, rendering the impugned Notice liable to be quashed. The petitioner further contends that this issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. which has held that Notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in such circumstances is invalid where the law prescribes issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer.

6.

As against, learned counsel for the respondents - Revenue submitted that, although the aforementioned decision is relevant, it is presently subject to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel further stated that no stay has been granted in respect of the judgment in the aforementioned decision, and the matter is likely to be considered by the Supreme Court shortly.

7.

Having regard to these facts, we do not find it appropriate to keep the matters pending. Since the issue is conclusively settled by the aforementioned decision, we are bound to adhere to it.

8.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and all proceedings or orders emanating therefrom.

919.WP.7959.2025.odt 3/3 9.

We grant liberty to the respondents - Revenue to revive this writ petition, should the decision of the Supreme Court overturn the ruling in the aforementioned case. It is clarified that the Respondents - Revenue need not file a separate application for revival; instead, a simple pursis may be filed before this Court to initiate the revival process. Furthermore, if the petition is revived, the operation and enforcement of the impugned Notice under Section 148 shall remain stayed until further orders. It is further clarified that upon revival, the petition shall be decided on its own merits, considering that multiple other grounds challenging the validity of the Notice under Section 148 have been raised. It is also clarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition challenging the decision in the aforementioned case, there shall be no question of revival.

10.

In view of the foregoing, writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (RAJ. D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Vijaykumar Signed by: Mr. Vijay Kumar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 12/12/2025 18:14:22