[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Priya Jasjit Singh vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2026:BHC-OS:2521-DB
sr.19-wp(l)-2135-2026.doc
TRUSHA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TUSHAR
MOHITE
Digitally signed by ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
TRUSHA TUSHAR
MOHITE
Date: 2026.01.29
11:10:05 +0530 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2135 OF 2026
Priya Jasjit Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Hiten Thakkar a/w Adv. Shubham Bhandari i/b Lumiere Law
Partners, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondents/Revenue.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026
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
Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and therefore the Notice has to be
quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner.
JANUARY 27, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.19-wp(l)-2135-2026.doc
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.
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
JANUARY 27, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.19-wp(l)-2135-2026.doc
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
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
JANUARY 27, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.19-wp(l)-2135-2026.doc
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
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
JANUARY 27, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.19-wp(l)-2135-2026.doc
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.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
JANUARY 27, 2026
Mansi shelke
