Bhagwati Ferro Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court/Forum: HC

Bench: B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.

Order Date: 2025-07-16

Outcome: Assessee

Sections: Section 148

Core Ratio

A notice under Section 148 must be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, and failure to do so is a fatal defect.

Outcome

The High Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a jurisdictional defect, as it was not issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer as required by law.

Favourability

Assessee

Core Issue

The central legal question was whether a notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, is valid.

Facts of the Case

Bhagwati Ferro Metal Pvt. Ltd. challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing it was issued by the wrong authority.

Arguments by Assessee

The assessee argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, citing the precedent set by Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

Arguments by Revenue

The Revenue acknowledged the precedent but noted that the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. was under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Key Sections & Provisions

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - relevant for the issuance of notice for reassessment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, when it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer, is a jurisdictional defect that renders the notice invalid. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

Court Reasoning & Analysis

Key Observations

Case Laws Cited

Related Issues

Important Passages

Not Decided / Remanded

The court left open the possibility of revisiting the case if the Supreme Court overturns the precedent.

Practical Takeaway

Practitioners should ensure that notices under Section 148 are issued by the correct authority, as jurisdictional defects can invalidate the notice.

Full Judgment Text

44-wp-1600-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1600 OF 2025

Bhagwati Ferro Metal Pvt. Ltd., .. Petitioner. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Central Circle 8 (4) & Others.. Respondents. Adv. Shashi Bekal, for the Petitioner. Adv. Suresh Kumar, for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE: JULY 16, 2025

P. C. 1In the above Petition Rule was issued on 30 th September 2024 and interim relief was also granted interalia staying the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Today, though the matter has come up under the caption “for directions”, we have, with the consent of parties, heard it 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 Page 1 of 3

JULY 16, 2025

S.R.JOSHI

SMITA

RAJNIKANT

JOSHI

Digitally signed by SMITA

RAJNIKANT

JOSHI

Date: 2025.07.21 13:20:37 +0530

2025:BHC-OS:11397-DB

::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2025::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 19:27:40 :::

44-wp-1600-2025.doc

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. 3.It is the Petitioners’ 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 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 immediately on re-opening. He has fairly stated that there is no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) . 5.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. Page 2 of 3

JULY 16, 2025

S.R.JOSHI

::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2025::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 19:27:40 :::

44-wp-1600-2025.doc

6.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. 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.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Page 3 of 3

JULY 16, 2025

S.R.JOSHI

::: Uploaded on - 21/07/2025::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2026 19:27:40 :::

Supporting Judgments

Contrary Judgments