It Is Submitted That The Controversy In The Present Case Is Squarelycovered By A Decision Of A Division Bench Of This Court In The Case Of Hexawaretechnologies v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 Taxmann.com 225 (Bombay

Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11517 OF 2025 Pravin Balasaheb Bhosale]Petitioner versusIncome Tax Officer Ward No.1, Pandharpur]and others ]Respondents ….. Mr. Sanket Bora a/w Mr. Swaroop Karade a/w Vidhi Punamiya a/w Mr.Siddharam Sasare and Mr. Rohan Sarda i/b SPCM Legal, for Petitioner. Ms. Smita Thakur (through V.C.), for Respondent – Income Tax. ….. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 8[th] OCTOBER, 2025. ORDER: [PER M.S. KARNIK, J.]: 1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2.Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the Petition. 3.The Petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 11[th] January,2023 issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for theAssessment Year 2016-2017 by the Respondent No. 1- Income Tax OfficerWard 1, Pandharpur. 4.It is submitted that the controversy in the present case is squarelycovered by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd. versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. 5. One of the grounds is that the notice has been issued by thejurisdictional assessing officer when the law mandates that it has to be issued bythe Faceless Assessing Officer. This is a fatal defect and, therefore, the Noticehas to be quashed, is the argument of the Petitioner. 6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated that thoughit is true that this issue is concluded by the decision in Hexaware TechnologiesLtd (supra), the said decision has been challenged before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is likely to take up thematter shortly. The learned Counsel for the Revenue has fairly stated that thereis no stay to the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra). 7. We are inclined to follow the view taken by this Court in IPGadvertising and business services LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax in Writ Petition (L) No. 35979 of 2024 (Original Side) order dated 4thAugust, 2025. This Court by the order dated 4th August 2025 while settingaside the impugned notice has observed thus:- “7. We however grant liberty to the Revenue to revive theabove Writ Petition in the event the decision in HexawareTechnologies Ltd(supra) is set aside by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt on this issue. We make it clear that it will not be necessaryfor the Revenue to file a separate Interim Application to seek arevival of this Petition and the same can be done simply bymoving a Praecipe before this Court. It is needless to clarify thatif the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismisses the SLP challenging thedecision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd(supra) , there would beno question of any revival. 8. We also make it clear that once the Petition is revived andrestored, the same would have to be decided on its own meritsconsidering that several other issues are also raised challengingthe Notice issued under Section 148.” 8. For the same reasons and with the same liberty as in IPG advertising and business services LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), rule is accordingly made absolute and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in termsthereof. 9. We accordingly set aside the impugned Notice issued under Section148A of the Income Tax Act and all other proceedings/orders emanatingtherefrom. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH. J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]