Bombay High Court
Vincent Commercial Company Limited vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1) ... on 29 September, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:17166-DB
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
VINA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10838 OF 2025
KHADPE Date:
2025.10.01
18:08:32
+0530
Vincent Commercial Company Limited .. Petitioner
office at B-11/12, Bhiwandiwala Terrace,
Ground Floor, Princess Street, Marine Lines,
Mumbai 400002
Versus
1 The Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1) Kolkata
Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square,
Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069.
2 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Kolkata-2
Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata,
West Bengal, 700060.
3 The National Faceless Assessment Centre
(formerly known as National e-Assessmnt Centre)
Income Tax Department, New Delhi.
4 The Union of India
Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001. .. Respondents
Mr. Devendra H. Jain, with Mr.Shashank A. Mehta, Mr. Saukhya
Kakade i/b. Ms. Radha P. Halbe, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Akhileshkumar Sharma, with Mr.Shradha Worlikar, Advocates for
the Respondents-Revenue.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
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. Alongwith the
notice, the assessment order dated 4th March, 2025 passed under Section 147
read with Section 144B is also impugned in the present Petition. One of the
grounds to challenge the notice as well as the reassessment order is that the
notice issued under Section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer, when the law mandates that it has to be issued by the Faceless
Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect, and therefore, the notice has to be
quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner. If the notice goes, then the
reassessment order also cannot stand and would have to be set aside, is the
submission 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)] . It is therefore prayed that the
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
Petition be allowed and the notice, as well as the reassessment order be
quashed and set aside.
4. Mr. Sharma, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue,
took a preliminary objection on the ground that this Court does not have any
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petition. He submitted
that the notice issued under Section 148 has been issued by the Assessing
Officer at Kolkata, and therefore, it is the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court which
would have jurisdiction to entertain the above Writ Petition. He submitted
that, in fact, the Petitioner has approached this Court only because the
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court has in the case of Triton
Overseas (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India & ors. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 318
[Calcutta] taken the view that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would
have jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148. It is only to get over
this decision that the Petitioner has approached this Court, because this
Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), has taken a
contrary view. Additionally, Mr. Sharma submitted that since the Assessing
Officer is situated in Kolkata, the doctrine of Forum Conveniens would
squarely apply, and on this ground also, the above Petition be dismissed
and the Petitioner be given an opportunity to approach the Hon'ble Calcutta
High Court with the grievances raised in the present Petition.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties on the issue of the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner,
originally, had its registered office in Kolkata. However, in 2017, the
registered office of the Petitioner was shifted to Mumbai. A certificate to that
effect has also been issued by the Registrar of Companies [Ministry of
Corporate Affairs] dated 17th May, 2017. In fact, this certificate, which can be
found at page 108 of the paper book, specifically states that the Petitioner by
a special resolution altered its Memorandum of Association with respect to
the place of the registered office by changing it from the State of West Bengal
to the State of Maharashtra, and such alteration has been confirmed by the
order of the Regional Director dated 10 th February, 2017. In other words, the
registered office of the Petitioner was changed to Mumbai as far back as on
10th February, 2017.
6. In the present case, the Assessment order in question is for AY 2019-
2020. Even in the Income Tax Returns filed for the said assessment year, the
address of the Petitioner is shown as B-11/12, Bhiwandiwala Terrace, Ground
Floor, Princess Street, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400002. However, the details
of the Assessing Officer are reflected as "Ward 12[1], KOLKATA". This has
happened because the Petitioner has not informed the Assessing Officer that
its registered office has been shifted from Kolkata to Mumbai.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
7. The notice issued to the Petitioner under Section 148(A)(b) of the
Income Tax Act, though reflected the address of the Petitioner's office at
Kolkata (its previous address), seeks to open a transaction entered into by
the Petitioner for AY 2019-2020 with an entity called M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd.,
which is also a Company incorporated and registered in the State of
Maharashtra. This is also clear from page 138 of the paper book. Further, the
proceedings have been opened on the basis of the case related information
details, which also reflects the address of the Petitioner as that of the
Mumbai. This document is at page 120 of the paper book.
8. When one looks at all these factors, we find that atleast a substantial
portion of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. If any cause of action has arisen outside its territorial jurisdiction,
it would be only that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the
Assessing Officer based in Kolkata and at the previous address of the
Petitioner at Kolkata. Further, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner, on instructions, has stated before the Court that on the date
when the notice under Section 148(A)(d) was issued to the Petitioner, the
Petitioner did not have any office at the address mentioned in the said notice
namely in Kolkata. Once these are the facts, we are clearly of the view that a
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Once we have come to this conclusion, we find that Article 226(2) of
the Constitution of India, clearly stipulates that the power to issue writs,
orders, or directions to any Government, Authority, or person may be
exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territory
within which the cause of action, wholly or in part arises, for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or Authority,
or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
10. Once we are of the view that a substantial part of the cause of action
has, in fact, arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, then,
notwithstanding the fact that the Assessing officer is based in Kolkata, this
Court would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the above Writ Petition.
11. As far as the issue of Forum Conveniens is concerned, we find no merit
in the aforesaid argument. Firstly, we find that this concept would not apply
to the facts of the present case, merely because the Assessing Officer is based
in Kolkata. The entire transaction which is sought to be opened in the notice
issued under Section 148 has, in fact, taken place within the territorial
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
jurisdiction of this Court. If at all, if we have to drive the Petitioner to go the
Calcutta High Court it would be of a greater inconvenience to the Petitioner.
Secondly, having held that the substantial cause of action has arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, we certainly would have the
jurisdiction to entertain the above Writ Petition. Hence, the preliminary
objection raised by Mr. Sharma, is accordingly, rejected.
12. Mr. Sharma then submitted that though it is true that the issue raised
in the present Petition, is concluded by the decision in Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra), the said decision has been challenged before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is likely to take up
the matter shortly. He, however, fairly submitted that there is no stay to the
Judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra).
13. Considering that the issue in the present Petition is squarely covered by
the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), and there is no stay to
the said Judgment, we do not propose to keep this matter pending in this
Court. Once it is fully covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.
(supra), we are bound to follow it.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
14. We accordingly set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148
and all other proceedings / orders emanating therefrom.
15. 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 specific issue, namely, as to
whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to issue a notice
under Section 148. 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. It is further ordered that in the event the above Writ Petition is
revived, there will be a stay to the operation and implementation of the
impugned 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 Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), there would be no
question of any revival.
16. We may also state here that in the event the Judgment in Hexaware
Technologies Ltd. (supra) is set aside on the specific issue raised in the
present Petition, and the present Petition is revived, the Petitioner will not
then be allowed to contend that the Kolkata Assessing Officer had no
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
89.os.wpl.10838.2025.doc
territorial jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 merely on the
ground that the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. This, in fact, is a concession made by Mr.Jain, the learned
advocate for the Petitioner, which we hereby accept.
17. We also make it clear that once the Petition is revived and restored, the
same would be decided on its own merits, considering that several other
issues are also raised challenging the notice issued under Section 148.
18. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ Petition is
also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
19. 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.]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Vina Khadpe,PS
