Mr. A. N. Agrawal, Mr. A.a. Naik, Senior Advocate With Mr. A.s.manohar, Mr. S.n. Bhattad, Mr. S. S. Dewani, Mr. G. D. Dani,Mr. A. J. Bhoot, Mr. R. D. Heda, Mr. v. Assistantcommissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5557/2024 [Mahavir Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., thr. Its Authorized Director Abhishek Satish JainVs. Asst. / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur and another] with Writ Petition Nos. 5366/2024, 3836/2024, 6045/2024, 6046/2024, 6236/2024,7349/2024, 6681/2024, 172/2025, 6119/2025, 6125/2025, 6140/2025, 6154/2025,367/2025, 5555/2024, 6635/2024, 6615/2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. N. Agrawal, Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.S.Manohar, Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Mr. S. S. Dewani, Mr. G. D. Dani,Mr. A. J. Bhoot, Mr. R. D. Heda, Mr. Kapil Hirani, Advocates forpetitioner/s in respective petitions. Mr. Bushan N. Mohata, Advocate for respondent/s in respectivepetitions. CORAM :ANIL L. PANSARE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE :OCTOBER 10, 2025 1)Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.Mr. Bushan Mohata waives service of notice on behalf of therespondents. 2) The Writ Petitions herein challenges, inter alia, the validityof the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961, on various grounds. One such ground contends that theNotice has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer,whereas the statutory law mandates that such Notices must beissued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The Petitioners assertsthat this constitutes a Fundamental defect, rendering theimpugned Notice liable to be quashed. The Petitioners furthercontend that this issue is directly covered by decision of thisCourt in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], which has held that Noticesissued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in suchcircumstances are invalid where the law prescribes issuance by aFaceless Assessing Officer. 3)As against, learned counsel for Respondent-Revenuesubmitted that, although the aforementioned decision isrelevant, it is presently subject to challenge before the Hon’bleSupreme Court. The learned counsel further stated that no stayhas been granted in respect of the judgment in theaforementioned decision, and the matter is likely to beconsidered by the Supreme Court shortly. 4)Having regard to these facts, we do not find itappropriate to keep the matters pending. Since the issue isconclusively settled by the aforementioned decision, we arebound to adhere to it. 5)Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Notice issuedunder Section 148 and all proceedings or orders emanatingtherefrom. 6)We grant liberty to the Respondent-Revenue to revivethis Writ Petition should the decision of the Supreme Courtoverturn the ruling in the aforementioned case. It is clarifiedthat the Respondent-Revenue need not file a separateapplication for revival; instead, a simple pursis may be filedbefore this court to initiate the revival process. Furthermore, ifthe Petitions are revived, the operation and enforcement of theimpugned Notice under Section 148 shall remain stayed until further orders. It is further clarified that upon revival, thePetitions shall be decided on its own merits, considering thatmultiple other grounds challenging the validity of the Noticeunder Section 148 have been raised. It is also clarified that if theSupreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition challengingthe decision in the aforementioned cases, there shall be noquestion of revival. further orders. It is further clarified that upon revival, thePetitions shall be decided on its own merits, considering thatmultiple other grounds challenging the validity of the Noticeunder Section 148 have been raised. It is also clarified that if theSupreme Court dismisses the Special Leave Petition challengingthe decision in the aforementioned cases, there shall be noquestion of revival. 7)In view of the foregoing, the Rule is made absolute,and the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shallbe no order as to costs. (JUDGE) (JUDGE)