RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE HUF THROUGH ITS KARTA, MR. RAVINDRA P. BIROLE vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

PDF · subscribers
WP/5410/2024HC BombayHCBM01012907202410 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 allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to raise all contentions against the principal order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in an appeal to be filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that an appeal would be filed within four weeks. The Court also permitted the petitioner to raise the plea of bonafide pursuit of the writ petitions in the delay condonation application for the future appeal. All contentions of the petitioner in that regard were expressly kept open. The petitions were disposed of without costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravindra Purushottam Birole (HUF), through its Karta Ravindra P. Birole, filed two writ petitions (WP No. 5409 of 2024 and WP No. 5410 of 2024) before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenged orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench. The specific assessment years and the amounts in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to these writ petitions is not detailed, other than the fact that the petitioner was pursuing these matters before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petitions with liberty to raise all contentions against the principal order passed by the ITAT in a future appeal under Section 260A of the Act. The petitioner also sought permission to file the appeal within four weeks and to have the delay condoned, citing bonafide pursuit of the writ petitions. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the withdrawal of the petitions or the liberty sought by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

12.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5409 OF 2024 Ravindra Purushottam Birole (HUF) thr. Its Karta Ravindra P. Birole ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench & Ors. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5410 OF 2024 Ravindra Purushottam Birole (HUF) thr. Its Karta Ravindra P. Birole ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench & Ors. ...Respondents __________ Mr. Sham Walve with Mr.Sanket Bora and Bhavik Chheda with Unnatii Thakkar i/b. SPCM Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for the Respondents. __________

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

DATE : 10 DECEMBER 2024 P.C.: 1. After these proceedings were heard for some time, Mr. Walve, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw these petitions with liberty to raise all contentions against the principal order as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the proceeding of an appeal to be filed by the petitioner under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). P. V. Rane Page 1 of 2 PRASHANT VILAS RANE Digitally signed by PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2024.12.12 20:48:12 +0530

12.odt 2. Allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. As the petitioner was bonafide pursuing these petitions, we accept the statement as made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall file an appeal under Section 260A of the Act within a period of four weeks from today. 4. In so far as the delay in filing such appeal is concerned, the petitioner is permitted to raise, in the delay condonation application, which may be filed along with the appeal, that the prayer for condonation of delay be considered so as to include the plea of the petitioner bonafide pursuing these petitions. All contentions of the petitioner in that regard are expressly kept open. 5. Disposed of. No costs.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.] P. V. Rane Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →