Bombay High Court
Shyam Hariram Murarka vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Nagpur ... on 3 October, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:10119-DB
1 912-wp 2863.2023 +.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2863 OF 2023
( Meditrina Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax CENCIR1 Nagpur and another )
WITH
WRIT PETITION NUMBERS
3097/2024 5295/2024 5546/2024 5559/2024 5560/2024
6343/2024 6576/2024 6679/2024 6719/2024 6736/2024
6843/2024 6854/2024 66/2025 440/2025 602/2025
662/2025 664/2025 667/2025 668/2025 669/2025
938/2025 1058/2025 1067/2025 1087/2025 1245/2025
1452/2025 1453/2025 1477/2025 1496/2025 1497/2025
1540/2025 1578/2025 1580/2025 1625/2025 3152/2025
4060/2025 4276/2025 4918/2025 5279/2025 5296/2025
5441/2025 5867/2025 5868/2025 5870/2025 5871/2025
5872/2025 5873/2025 5874/2025 5900/2025 5902/2025
5911/2025 5912/2025 5915/2025 5916/2025 5917/2025
5918/2025 5678/2024 89/2025 5391/2024 5289/2024
5303/2024 5301/2024 5302/2024 5385/2024 5369/2024
5367/2024 5368/2024 5365/2024 5561/2024 5667/2024
5653/2024 6428/2024 6625/2024 6426/2024 5729/2024
6069/2024 6071/2024 7380/2024 7377/2024 7280/2024
3154/2025 3155/2025 3156/2025 3158/2025
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Mr. A.J.Gilda, Mr. Ram Heda, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. R.S.Kurekar,
Mr. Kapil Hirani, Mr. M.M.Bhusari, Mr. A.S.Manohar, Mr. Abhay N.
Agrawal, Mr. Z.Z.Haq, Ms. Rutuja Pawar, Mr. S.N.Bhattad, Mr.Y.N.
Sambre, and Mr. Onkar Bhope Advocates for petitioner/s in respective
petitions.
Mr. Anand Parchure with Mr.Bhushan Mohta, Advocates for
respondent/s in respective petitions.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, JJ.
OCTOBER 03, 2025
KOLHE
2 912-wp 2863.2023 +.odt
1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Mr.Anand Parchure waives service of notice on behalf of
respondents.
2) The Writ Petitions herein challenges, inter alia, the
validity of the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income 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 Notices must be
issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The Petitioners asserts that
this constitutes a Fundamental defect, rendering the impugned
Notice liable to be quashed. The Petitioners further contends that
this issue is directly covered by decision of this Court in the case of
Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225
(Bombay)], which has held that Notices issued by the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in such circumstances are invalid
where the law prescribes issuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer.
3) As against, learned counsel for Respondent-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.
4) 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.
KOLHE
3 912-wp 2863.2023 +.odt
5) Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Notice issued
under Section 148 and all proceedings or orders emanating
therefrom.
6) We grant liberty to the Respondent-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 Respondent-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 Petitions are
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 Petitions 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 cases, there shall be no question of revival.
7) In view of the foregoing, the Rule is made absolute,
and the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be
no order as to costs.
( JUDGE ) ( JUDGE )
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/10/2025 16:50:48
