Rupam Rajendra Gorecha vs. The Director Of Income Tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/49973/2025HC Madhya Pradesh16 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT3 pages
For Petitioner: Anand Prabhawalkar[P-1]For Respondent: Harsh Parashar[R-1]
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dismissed the writ petition. The Court found that the issue raised in the present petition, which was a challenge to the Warrant of Authorization dated 13/3/2014, was already a subject matter for consideration in the pending appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The Court noted that the petitioner had raised a similar issue as an additional ground before the ITAT, and the subsequent appeal before the Gujarat High Court also included a question concerning the ITAT's adjudication of additional grounds without sufficient opportunity for the revenue. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to entertain the present petition, as the matter was sub-judice in another forum. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for framing of additional substantial question of law in the pending appeal if they felt the issue required further framing.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rupam Rajendra Gorecha, filed a writ petition challenging a Warrant of Authorization dated 13/3/2014 issued by the Director of Income Tax, Bhopal, which requisitioned seized cash and silver. The petitioner argued the order was without jurisdiction and lacked the necessary satisfaction under Section 132(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, stating that an assessment order had already been passed, and an appeal challenging the validity of the authorization was pending before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (R/Tax Appeal No. 99/2020). The petitioner contended that this specific challenge to the authorization was not part of the pending appeal. The High Court noted that a similar issue regarding the requisition's validity was raised as an additional ground before the ITAT, and the subsequent appeal before the Gujarat High Court also included a question related to the ITAT adjudicating additional grounds without sufficient opportunity for the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Warrant of Authorization dated 13/3/2014, issued under Section 132(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was without jurisdiction and passed without recording the necessary satisfaction, rendering it invalid and illegal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Warrant of Authorization was without jurisdiction and passed without recording the satisfaction of the conditions precedent for assuming jurisdiction under Section 132(A) of the Act. They relied on Gaya Prasad Pathak vs. ACIT & Ors., CIT vs. Paras Rice Mills, Triloksingh Dhillon vs. CIT, and Pratibha Jewellery House vs. CIT (A) & Ors. to support their claim that such a challenge cannot be raised before the assessing authority or ITAT. Revenue's Contention: The respondent raised a preliminary objection that an assessment order had already been passed, and an appeal (R/Tax Appeal No. 99/2020) challenging the validity of the authorization was already pending before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. They argued that the petitioner could not pursue two simultaneous proceedings and that the issue was already under consideration in the pending appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(A),Section 132,Section 153A,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 49973 of 2025 RUPAM RAJENDRA GORECHA Versus THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri P.M Choudhary, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anand Prabhawalkar and Shri Madhav Khandelwal - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harsh Parashar, Advocate (through VC) with Ms.Yashika Bondwal - Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the "Warrant of Authorization" dated 13/3/2014 passed by the Director of Income Tax, Bhopal requisitioning the seized cash and silver from the Police authorities. 2. It is argued that the said order is without jurisdiction and has been passed without recording the satisfaction of the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 132(A) of the Income Tax Act 1961(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). 3. Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the assessment order has already been passed. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad registered as R/Tax 1 WP-49973-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7154 Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:37 Signature Not Verified

Appeal No.99/2020 which is still pending before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. He argued that the same question in relation to challenge to the authority of warrant of authorization is already under consideration in the said appeal and, therefore, the petitioner cannot prosecute two simultaneous proceedings. Even otherwise, the warrant of authorization is of year 2014 and in pursuant to that already assessment order has been passed against which the matter is pending in appeal before the Gujarat High Court. 4. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such challenge to the validity of the authorization is pending in the said appeal. He argued that such question cannot be raised under Section 132/132(A) of the Income Tax Act before the assessing authority or in further appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. He placed reliance on following judgments:- a) Gaya Prasad Pathak vs. ACIT & Ors. reported in (2007) 290 ITR 128. b) CIT vs. Paras Rice Mills reported in (2009) 313 ITR 182. c) Triloksingh Dhillon vs. CIT reported in (2011) 332 ITR 185. d) Pratibha Jewellery House vs. CIT (A) & Ors. reported in (2018) 404 ITR 91(Karn). 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we find that before the Tribunal by way of additional ground of appeal, the petitioner has raised the similar issue which is reproduced as under:-

1.

That the requisition u/S.132A(1)(c) of the Act was without jurisdiction and without having reason to believe therefore requisition itself is invalid, illegal and contrary to the provision of the Act. Accordingly, the proceedings u/S.153A/153C of the Act are also illegal and bad in law and the assessment made in pursuance thereof deserves to be quashed. 6. Upon this order of the Tribunal, it is further evident that the appeal was 2 WP-49973-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7154 Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:37 Signature Not Verified

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE (ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE admitted on the additional ground as well. After the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed Second Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. It is clear that the said issue is pending in the appeal also. The question No.d is reproduced as under:-

(d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT has erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, without giving sufficient opportunity to the Revenue to raise objection on the additional grounds as required under Rule 11 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ? 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the issue raised in the present petition i.e challenge to the authorization dated 13/3/2014 is one of the issue for consideration in the pending appeal before High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 9. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner that if the petitioner feels that the issue raised in the present petition further requires to be framed in the said appeal, he may file an application for framing of additional substantial question of law. PK

3 WP-49973-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7154 Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 17-03-2026 18:20:37 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →