Mansi Share And Stock Broking Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed by DARSHAN PRAKASH PATIL Date:

2025.06.17 11:43:15 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION DARSHAN PRAKASH PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2080 OF 2025 Mansi Share and Stock Broking Private Limited .. Petitioner.

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle- 4(3)(1), Mumbai and Ors.

.. Respondents Adv. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Dharan Gandhi, for the Petitioner.

Adv. Subir Kumar a/w Adv. Niyanta Trivedi, for the Respondent.

CORAM:

B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE:

P. C.

1.

The above Writ Petition takes exception to the notice issued by the Revenue dated 29th March 2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") and the approval dated 29th March 2025 issued under Section 151 thereof.

2.

Though several grounds to challenge the said notice have been set out in the Petition, at this stage, what was pressed before us is that notice issued

under Section 148 has been issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4 (3)(1), Mumbai who is a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer, as contemplated under the Scheme dated 29th March 2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT") under Section 151A of the IT Act.

3.

In support of the aforesaid submission, Mr Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon the decision 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 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 29th 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.

5.

Be that as it may, 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 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.

6.

In these circumstances, we pass the following order:- (a) Rule. The Respondents waive service;

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, there shall be a stay to the notice under Section 148 dated 29th March 2025 and any other proceedings arising under such notice;

(c) Liberty to the parties to apply after appropriate orders are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or a final decision is rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). 7.

The Revenue is directed to file their affidavit in reply to the above Writ Petition within a period of 4 weeks from today and serve a copy to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

8.

Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]