Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Akhter Hussain Hashmullah Choudhary vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6773 Bom

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6773 Bom
Judgement Date : 13 October, 2025

Bombay High Court

Akhter Hussain Hashmullah Choudhary vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 13 October, 2025

Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-AS:44577-DB


                                                                   8-WP-13386-2025.doc



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 13386 OF 2025

            Akhter Hussain Hashmullah Choudhary                      .. Petitioner

                    Versus

            The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
            Central Circle 1(3), Pune and Ors.                       .. Respondents

                 Mr. Sanket S. Bora, a/w Ms. Vidhi Punmiya, Adv. Amiya R. Das,
                 i/b SPCM Legal, Advocates for the Petitioner.

                 Mr. Ashok Kotangle, a/w Adv. Vishnu Chaudhari, Adv. Nikitesh
                 Kotangale, Adv. Narendra Bhagat, i/b Adv. Smita Thakur with Adv.
                 Rajashri Karande, 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 8-WP-13386-2025.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 central charges 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 8-WP-13386-2025.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 central

charges. 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 8-WP-13386-2025.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 8-WP-13386-2025.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 17:34:08

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter