Zavron Finance Private Limited, Nagpur v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Nagpur And Ors

1 wp 6497.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6497 OF 2025 [Zavron Finance Private Limited, Nagpur through its Director Mr. Bharat Vaswani vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Nagpur and ors.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ - - - Mr. Kapil Hirani, Advocate for the petitionerMr. B. N. Mohata, Advocate instructed by Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocatefor the respondent nos. 1 to 5 CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATED : 17-10-2025. Heard. 2.Issue notice. 3.Mr. B. N. Mohata, learned counsel waives service ofnotice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5. 4.The argument is that the matter is covered by thejudgment in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024)162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]and that in various othermatters, taking cognizance of said judgment, this Court haspassed order. The same course should be followed in thepresent matter. The counsel for respondents would agree tosuch proposition. 5. The Writ Petition herein challenges, inter alia, thevalidity of the Notice issued under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, on various grounds. One such ground contendsthat the Notice has been issued by the Jurisdictional AssessingOfficer, whereas the statutory law mandates that such Noticesmust be issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer. The Petitioner 2 wp 6497.2025 asserts that this constitutes a fundamental defect, rendering theimpugned Notice liable to be quashed. The Petitioner furthercontend that this issue is directly covered by the decision of thisCourt in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. which has heldthat Notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer insuch circumstances are invalid where the law prescribesissuance by a Faceless Assessing Officer. 6.As against, learned counsel for the respondents -Revenue submitted that, although the aforementioned decisionis relevant, it is presently subject to challenge before theHon’ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel further stated thatno stay has been granted in respect of the judgment in theaforementioned decision, and the matter is likely to beconsidered by the Supreme Court shortly. 7.Having regard to these facts, we do not find itappropriate to keep the matter pending. Since the issue isconclusively settled by the aforementioned decision, we arebound to adhere to it. 8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Noticeissued under Section 148 and all proceedings or ordersemanating therefrom. 9. We grant liberty to the respondents - Revenue torevive this writ petition, should the decision of the SupremeCourt overturn the ruling in the aforementioned case. It isclarified that the Respondents - Revenue need not file aseparate application for revival; instead, a simple pursis may befiled before this Court to initiate the revival process.Furthermore, if the petition is revived, the operation andenforcement of the impugned Notice under Section 148 shallremain stayed until further orders. It is further clarified that wasnik 3 wp 6497.2025 8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Noticeissued under Section 148 and all proceedings or ordersemanating therefrom. 9. We grant liberty to the respondents - Revenue torevive this writ petition, should the decision of the SupremeCourt overturn the ruling in the aforementioned case. It isclarified that the Respondents - Revenue need not file aseparate application for revival; instead, a simple pursis may befiled before this Court to initiate the revival process.Furthermore, if the petition is revived, the operation andenforcement of the impugned Notice under Section 148 shallremain stayed until further orders. It is further clarified that wasnik 3 wp 6497.2025 upon revival, the petition shall be decided on its own merits,considering that multiple other grounds challenging the validityof the Notice under Section 148 have been raised. It is alsoclarified that if the Supreme Court dismisses the Special LeavePetition challenging the decision in the aforementioned cases,there shall be no question of revival. 10. In view of the foregoing, writ petition is disposed ofaccordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)(A. L. PANSARE, J.)