2026 (2) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssued under Section 156, are also assailed. 3. The short ground on which all these orders are challenged is that the authorities below have refused to follow the judgment of this Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, circle 15(1)(2) [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. 4. We must note that initially, the Petitioner had approached this Court challenging the order passed under Section 148A(d), as well as the notice issued under Section 148 by filing Writ Petition (L) No. 3219 of 2025. This Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 7th April 2025. By the said order, this Court held that the Petitioner could challenge the draft assessment order dated 27th March 2025 by approaching the DRP. 5. Pursuant to this direction, the Petitioner herein approached the DRP and filed its objections. However, as contemplated under Section 144C(2)(b)(ii) objections to the draft assessment order were not intimated and/or filed before the Assessing Officer. Since this was not done, the Assessing Officer, under Section 144C(3)(b) read with Section 144C(4), passed the final assessment order on 22nd May 2025. Since the fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ficer is upheld. It is to challenge this order that the Petitioner is before us in the third Writ Petition [the present Writ Petition]. 8. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that firstly, this Writ Petition is barred by the principles of res judicata, because the two earlier Petitions filed by this very Petitioner inter alia challenged the notice issued under Section 148, and they were not entertained, though it was their specific case that the issue was squarely covered by the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Hence, the Petitioner now cannot come for the third time and challenge those very notices. 9. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, it was submitted by the Revenue that the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the directions given by the DRP (dated 23rd January 2026) is an appealable order before the ITAT. The Revenue contends that this is an equally efficacious alternate remedy available to the Petitioner, and hence, the above Writ Petition ought not to be entertained, and the Petitioner ought to be relegated to avail of the alternate remedy. 10. The last objection taken by the R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... December 2025. It is pursuant to the DRP's directions that the final assessment order is once again passed on 23rd January 2026. 15. We find from the record that the DRP has refused to follow the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) this Court, after examining the scheme formulated under Section 151A, came to the conclusion that notice under Section 148, issued after 29th March 2022, could not be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, but had to be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer. In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) it was held that this was a jurisdictional defect and notice issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer could not be sustained. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the notice issued under Section 148 was by the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer. Hence, the present case would be squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). 16. We fail to understand how the DRP has come to the finding that the ratio of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) has been deviated from by this Court in J. D. Print....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said contention. In the earlier two Writ Petitions, though the same were not entertained, the Petitioner was permitted to avail of the alternate remedy and raise the issue of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) before the DRP. This is clear not only from the orders passed in the first Writ Petition [Writ Petition (L) No. 3219 of 2025] but also in the second Writ Petition [Writ Petition (L) No. 23576 of 2025]. 22. Despite the issue of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) being raised before the DRP, the DRP refused to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the third Writ Petition [the present Petition]. In these circumstances, we do not believe that the principles of res judicata would bar the filing of this Petition. This contention of the Revenue is therefore rejected. 23. The next contention raised by the Revenue is that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the ITAT to challenge the assessment order dated 23rd January 2026. It is true that the Petitioner does have an alternate remedy to challenge the said assessment....