VINOD YASHWANT RUPANVAR PATIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/13317/2024HC BombayHCBM01044732202415 June 20263 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, issued on or after April 1, 2021, is clearly time-barred. The Court found that the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 19(f) of the Rajeev Bansal judgment, which was relied upon, states the Revenue's concession that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 was set aside. Any action taken or emanating from the said Notice was also quashed and set aside. The Rule was made absolute, and the Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Yashwant Rupanvar Patil, filed a Writ Petition challenging a Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5) Pune. The assessment year in question is 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notice is time-barred, relying on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. The Revenue had conceded that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the prescribed period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). The High Court noted that the notice was indeed issued on or after April 1, 2021, and pertained to AY 2015-16.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, issued on or after April 1, 2021, is time-barred, in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70(SC)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Notice under Section 148 is time-barred, relying on the concession made by the Revenue in the Rajeev Bansal case. The petitioner also raised grounds based on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned counsel, had made a concession before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case, as recorded in paragraph 19(f) of the judgment, stating that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

93 wp13317-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13317 OF 2024 Vinod Yashwant Rupanvar Patil .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5) Pune and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w. Mr Sachin Hande a/w. Ms. Preshita Adamane, for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for the Respondents / Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JUNE 15, 2026 P. C. 1. In the present Writ Petition, Rule was issued on 30th September 2024. 2. The above Writ Petition interalia challenges the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Though one of the main grounds on which the aforesaid Notice is challenged is based on the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Page 1 of 3 JUNE 15, 2026 Mamta Kale MAMTA AMAR KALE Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date: 2026.06.19 14:59:02 +0530

93 wp13317-2024.doc

Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 decided on 3rd May 2024), it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that in any event, the Notice is time barred in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70(SC). 4. In the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the Notice under Section 148 is issued on or after 1st April 2021. It is also an admitted fact that the present case pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. On these facts, we find that the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (Supra), squarely applies. Paragraph 19(f) of Rajeev Bansal (Supra) reads as under: “19. Mr. N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue : a. ….. b. ….. c. …. d. …. e. …. f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;” Page 2 of 3 JUNE 15, 2026 Mamta Kale

93 wp13317-2024.doc

5.

In these circumstances, the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is clearly time barred. Accordingly, the Writ Petition succeeds and the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 is hereby set aside. Consequently, any action taken or emanating from the said Notice is also hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

7.

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 JUNE 15, 2026 Mamta Kale

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →