Bombay High Court
Vibhavari Bharat Bhatt 2019 2020 vs The Income Tax Officer (Intl) Tax Ward ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:14255-DB
109-WPL-23576-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23576 OF 2025
Vibhavari Bharat Bhatt .. Petitioner
Versus
The Income Tax Officer (Intl.) Tax Ward
- 1(2)(1), Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Devendra H. Hain, a/w Adv. Shashank A. Mehta, Advocates
for the Petitioner.
Adv. Prathamesh Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 25, 2025
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties,
the Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The above Writ Petition is filed to quash and set aside (i) the
notice dated 29th March 2023 issued under Section 148A(b); (ii) the order
dated 04th May 2023 passed under Section 148A(d); (iii) the notice dated 04 th
May 2023 issued under Section 148; (iv) the order dated 27 th March 2025
passed under Section 144C(1); (v) the reassessment order dated 22 nd May
AUGUST 25, 2025
Darshan Patil
109-WPL-23576-2025.doc
2025 passed under Section 147; (vi) the notice of demand dated 22 nd May
2025 issued under Section 156 read with the issue letter dated 15 th July 2025;
and (vii) the order dated 30th June 2025 passed by the Dispute Resolution
Panel ("DRP") under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act").
3. One of the challenges in the above Petition is that the
proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 of the IT Act were initiated by the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when, in fact, it ought to have been issued by
the Faceless Assessing Officer. Since the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has
initiated the proceedings, all notices and orders passed are vitiated on the
ground of jurisdiction. According to the Petitioner, this issue is squarely
covered by a decision of the 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. Learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue submitted that the
proceedings under Sections 147 and 148, namely, (i) the notice issued under
Section 148A(b); (ii) the order passed under Section 148A(d); and (iii) the
notice issued under Section 148 were already challenged by the Petitioner in
an earlier Writ Petition, being Writ Petition (L) No. 3219 of 2025. That Writ
Petition was disposed of by this Court vide its order 07 th April 2025. By the
AUGUST 25, 2025
Darshan Patil
109-WPL-23576-2025.doc
said order, this Court allowed the Petitioner to challenge the Draft
Assessment Order dated 27th March 2025 by approaching DRP. Pursuant to
this direction, the Petitioner herein approached the DRP and filed its
objections. However, as contemplated under Section 144C(2)(b)(ii), the
objections to the Draft Assessment Order were not intimated and/or filed
before the Assessing Officer. Since this was not done, the Assessing Officer
under Section 144C(3)(b) read with Section 144C(4) passed the final
assessment order on 22nd May 2025. Since the final assessment order was
passed by the Assessing Officer, the DRP, by its order dated 30 th June 2025,
disposed of the objections of the Petitioner as being non-est.
5. In this light, the learned Advocate appearing for the Revenue
submitted that proceedings initiated by the Department under Sections 147
and 148 cannot once again be challenged in the present Petition by relying
upon the judgment of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra).
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and we have also
perused papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition.
7. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner, in the earlier Writ Petition
filed by him, namely Writ Petition (L) No. 3219 of 2025, had in fact
challenged the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under
Section 148A(d) and notice issued under Section 148, on the ground that they
AUGUST 25, 2025
Darshan Patil
109-WPL-23576-2025.doc
have been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless
Assessing Officer and was covered by the judgment in the case of Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra). Despite this, this Court was of the opinion that in
the facts of the present case, the Petitioner be relegated to raise all those
issues before the DRP. Acting upon this order, the Petitioner in fact did
approach the DRP and filed its objections. Since the Petitioner did not inform
the Assessing Officer that their objections to the draft assessment order were
filed before the DRP, the Assessing Officer, in terms of the relevant
provisions of Section 144C, passed a final assessment order.
8. Once these are the facts, we are in agreement with the learned
Advocate appearing for the Revenue that this Petition cannot once again
challenge the notice issued under Section 148A(b), the order passed under
Section 148A(d), and the notice issued under Section 148. All this would have
to be agitated before the DRP. Since the DRP has passed its order rejecting
objections of the Petitioner on the ground that the final assessment order is
passed by the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that the limited relief that
can be granted in the present Petition is to set aside the final assessment
order dated 22nd May 2025 and revive the objections filed by the Petitioner
before the DRP.
AUGUST 25, 2025
Darshan Patil
109-WPL-23576-2025.doc
9. We must state that we do not find any fault on the part of the
Assessing Officer in passing the final assessment order, as he was obliged to
do so if the Petitioner did not intimate him about the objections filed before
the DRP. However, in light of the decisions of this Court in (i) Sulzer
Pumps India Private Limited V/s Dy. Commissioner of Income
Tax Circle-15(3)(2) and Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 15811 of 2021
decided on 27th October 2021); (ii) Zarah Rafique Malik V/s
Income Tax Officer IT Ward-3(2)(1) Mumbai and Ors. (Writ
Petition No. 5272 of 2024 decided on 03 rd March 2025); and (iii)
Saleri India Pvt. Ltd. V/s The National Faceless Assessment
Centre and Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 21887 of 2025 decided on
21st July 2025), we are of the view that the interest of justice would be
served if the final assessment order is set aside and the matter is revived
before the DRP to decide the objections of the Petitioner on merits.
10. We accordingly set aside the final assessment order dated 22 nd
May 2025 as well as the demand notice issued under Section 156 dated 22 nd
May 2025, read with the issue letter dated 15 th July 2025 and the order
passed by the DRP on 30th June 2025.
AUGUST 25, 2025
Darshan Patil
109-WPL-23576-2025.doc
11. The objections filed by the Petitioner before DRP against the
Draft Assessment Order dated 27th March 2025 shall stand revived and the
DRP shall decide those objections in accordance with law.
12. It is needless to clarify that the DRP, whilst deciding those
objections, shall obviously take into consideration all the contentions of the
Petitioner, including the contentions raised in this Petition regarding the
applicability of the judgment of this Court in the case of Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra).
13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no
orders as to the costs.
14. 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.]
AUGUST 25, 2025
Darshan Patil
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/08/2025 15:01:11
