Virendra Ship Recyclers LLP Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with the proceedings and orders arising from it. Among the grounds raised by the petitioners was that the notice had been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas, according to the petitioners, the law required it to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer. The petitioners contended that this constituted a fatal defect and relied upon the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 com 225 (Bombay)].
The Revenue accepted that the issue was covered by the Hexaware Technologies decision but submitted that the decision had been challenged before the Supreme Court and was likely to be considered shortly. The Revenue also fairly stated that there was no stay against the Hexaware Technologies judgment.
The High Court observed that the issue was fully covered by the earlier decision and that it was bound to follow it. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and all proceedings and orders emanating from it.
The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the writ petition if the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the Hexaware Technologies decision on this issue. Such revival could be sought by moving a Praecipe, without filing a separate Interim Application. If the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging Hexaware Technologies, there would be no question of revival.
