KISHORE SHANKAR GARVE vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH

PDF · subscribers
WP/17570/2024HC BombayHCBM01058703202410 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI,HON'BLE JUSTICE ADVAIT M. SETHNA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner should urge all their contentions in substantive appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court was of the opinion that the writ petitions were not the appropriate forum to challenge the ITAT's order rejecting the Miscellaneous Applications. The reasoning was that the petitioner had available to them the remedy of filing substantive appeals against the ITAT's order. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel informed them that appeals had already been filed. Therefore, all contentions could be raised in those pending appeals. The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions in the pending appeals. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court directed the petitioner to the appropriate appellate remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kishore Shankar Garve, filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 7 February 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench. The ITAT had rejected Miscellaneous Applications filed by the petitioner. These applications arose from ITA Nos. 1869 & 2286/PUN/2017, pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The ITAT rejected the applications on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the original orders. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and observed that the petitioner needed to urge these issues in substantive appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner can challenge the ITAT's order rejecting their Miscellaneous Applications (dated 7 February 2023) via a writ petition, or if substantive appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act are the appropriate recourse. This is a question of law and procedure. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, sought to challenge the ITAT's order. The judgment does not explicitly detail the specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the merits of the Miscellaneous Applications, but rather focuses on the procedural avenue for challenge. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

16.WP17570_2024.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17570 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 17573 OF 2024

Kishore Shankar Garve … Petitioner Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sanket S. Bora a/w. Mr. Unnatii A. Thakkar i/b. SPCM Legal for the petitioner. _______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. Date : 10 December, 2024 _______________________ PC: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner for sometime on these petitions, which assails an order dated 7 February, 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on Miscellaneous Application Nos. 234 & 235/PUN/22 (Arising out of ITA Nos.1869 & 2286/PUN/2017) for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13. By the impugned order, Miscellaneous Applications filed by the petitioner have been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the order. 2. We are of the opinion that the petitioner needs to urge all these issues in Page 1 of 2 10 December, 2024

2024:BHC-AS:48215-DB

16.WP17570_2024.DOC assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the Miscellaneous Applications in substantive appeals as available to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 260A of the Income tax Act. 3. At this stage, it is informed to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed appeals. If that be so, all these contentions can be raised in the appeals. 4. With these observations, we dispose of these petitions with liberty to raise all contentions in the pending appeals. 5. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Page 2 of 2 10 December, 2024

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/12/2024 15:18:14

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →