Bombay High Court
Shabana Aijaz Khan vs Income Tax Officer International Tax ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:18815-DB
82-WP(L)-32001-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 32001 OF 2025
Shabana Aijaz Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, International Tax
Ward - 3(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Rutuja Pawar, a/w Adv. Hetal Laghave, Adv. Sneha More,
Adv. Pranaya Muthathyan, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Adv. Subir Kumar, a/w Adv. Niyanta Trivedi, Advocates for the
Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2025
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of 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
OCTOBER 13, 2025
Darshan Patil
82-WP(L)-32001-2025.doc
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 Petitioner's 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 the ratio laid down in Hexaware Technologies Ltd
(supra), would not apply to the facts of the present case because the present
matter is in relation to international taxation and hence that would not be
covered. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel
further submitted that even if the ratio of the judgment in Hexaware
Technologies Ltd (supra) was to apply, the said judgment has been
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is likely to take up the matter shortly. He, therefore, submitted that the
Writ Petition be kept pending till the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd
(supra) is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
OCTOBER 13, 2025
Darshan Patil
82-WP(L)-32001-2025.doc
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. In the facts
of the present case, there is no dispute that the Notice under Section 148 has
been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless
Assessing Officer. This, as per the decision in the case of Hexaware
Technologies Ltd (supra), would be fatal to the Notice. We find no force in
the argument of the Revenue that the judgment in Hexaware Technologies
Ltd (supra) would not apply to the present case because it relates to
international taxation. This issue is also covered by another Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah v/s
Income-tax Officer, International Taxation [2024] 166
taxmann.com.679 (Bombay). In this decision, the Division Bench has
clearly opined that even in cases of central charges and international
taxation, the Notice would have to be issued under the faceless procedure,
namely, the Faceless Assessing Officer. Paragraph 17 of the decision in Abhin
Shah (supra) sets out the aforesaid proposition and reads thus:-
"17. We have thus reached a considered conclusion that
the mandatory faceless procedure for issuance of
notice under section 148 of the Act falling within the
purview of the scheme notified by the Central
Government dated 29 March 2022 would not exclude
the Central charges and International taxation
charges from the application of the faceless
OCTOBER 13, 2025
Darshan Patil
82-WP(L)-32001-2025.doc
mechanism as notified under section 144B read with
section 151A of the Act."
6. We, therefore, find that the contention of the Revenue that in
the present case the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer could have issued Notice
under Section 148 is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Once we
find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered not only by the
decision of Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) but also in the case of Abhin
Shah (supra), we are bound to follow the said decisions. 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. In the event the above Petition stands revived,
there will be a stay to the implementation and operation of the Notice issued
under Section 148 until further orders. It is needless to clarify that if the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging the decision in
OCTOBER 13, 2025
Darshan Patil
82-WP(L)-32001-2025.doc
Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), there would be no question of any
revival.
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
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
OCTOBER 13, 2025
Darshan Patil
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/10/2025 17:30:45
