Popat Yadavrao Ingale vs Income Tax Officer Ward Silvassa ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 719 Bom

Bombay High Court

Popat Yadavrao Ingale vs Income Tax Officer Ward Silvassa ... on 21 January, 2026

Author: B. P. Colabawalla

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla

     2026:BHC-AS:3509-DB


                                                                                       13.wp.474.2026.doc



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO.474 OF 2026

                       Popat Yadavrao Ingale                                             .. Petitioner

                                 Versus

                       Income Tax Officer Ward
                       Silvassa & Ors.                                                   .. Respondents

                            Mr.Sanket Bora a/w Deepak Sharma, Archena Shetty,
          Digitally


UTKARSH
          signed by
          UTKARSH
          KAKASAHEB
                            Vidhi Punmiya, Amiya Ranjan Das i/b SPCM Legal,
KAKASAHEB BHALERAO
BHALERAO Date:
          2026.01.23
          15:17:57
                            Advocates for the Petitioner.
          +0530




                            None for the Respondents.

                                                CORAM          : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
                                                                 FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

                                                DATE           : JANUARY 21, 2026

                       P. C.

1. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner

submits that there is a mistake in the cause title of Respondent No.2. It

is stated that Respondent No.2 is actually "the Joint Commissioner of

Income Tax Range Valsad" and not the "Joint Commissioner of Income,

Range Valsad, Mumbai". She, therefore, sought leave to correct the

name of Respondent No.2.

JANUARY 21, 2026 Utkarsh

13.wp.474.2026.doc

2. Considering this is a just formal amendment, the name of

Respondent No.2 shall be substituted as follows:-

"JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE Valsad"

3. The amendment shall be carried out forthwith in front of

the Associate. Re-verification is dispensed with.

4. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of

parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

5. 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 Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and

therefore the Notice has to be quashed, is the argument of the

Petitioner.

6. 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

JANUARY 21, 2026 Utkarsh

13.wp.474.2026.doc

Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2)[(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225

(Bombay)].

7. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the Revenue stated that though it is true that this issue 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.

The learned Counsel for the Revenue has fairly stated that there is no

stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra).

8. Considering these facts, we do not propose to keep the

matter pending in this Court. Once it is fully covered by the decision in

Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) we are bound to follow it.

9. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under

Section 148 and all other proceedings / orders emanating therefrom.

10. 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

JANUARY 21, 2026 Utkarsh

13.wp.474.2026.doc

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 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

JANUARY 21, 2026 Utkarsh

13.wp.474.2026.doc

13. 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.]

JANUARY 21, 2026 Utkarsh