Raziya Bano Mohd Yaseen Kachchhi, LRs of Roshan Waghadia v. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Nagpur & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner challenged a section 148 notice on several grounds, including issuance by the jurisdictional rather than faceless assessing officer. Hexaware Technologies, (2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), was relied on. The order does not state the assessment year or alleged escaped-income amount.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Revenue stated that Hexaware was under challenge before the Supreme Court and that no stay had been granted. The Court treated its existing precedent as binding and declined to keep the petition pending. Those submissions describe the position recorded on 5 December 2025, not independently verified current treatment.

Source: PDF p. 2

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The notice and all proceedings or orders emanating from it were set aside. Revenue may initiate revival by a simple pursis if the Supreme Court overturns Hexaware. On revival, the notice remains stayed until further orders and the other grounds must be considered on their own merits. Dismissal of the SLP leaves no question of revival. Rule was made absolute, without costs.

Source: PDF p. 2

4. OUTCOME

Relief to the petitioner on the issuing-authority issue, with express conditional revival and continuing interim protection if revived.

Source: PDF p. 2

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Revival requires the stated outcome and a pursis

A pending Supreme Court challenge alone is not the trigger. The order permits Revenue to initiate revival if Hexaware is overturned; a separate revival application is unnecessary, but the procedural step is not omitted.

Source: PDF p. 2

Revival does not activate the notice immediately

The source expressly keeps operation and enforcement stayed until further orders. It also preserves the other objections for merits consideration, rather than treating reversal of Hexaware as resolution of the entire petition.

Source: PDF p. 2

The result is confined to this notice challenge

The Court did not decide the taxpayer’s income or liability, and the source does not identify an assessment year. Later treatment of Hexaware must be checked separately before present-day reliance.

Source: PDF p. 2