BHARTI MANOHAR MANCHANDYA AY 2015 16 vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax circle 1 kalyan AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7023/2026HC BombayHCBM01015491202624 August 20263 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge both the Assessment Order dated March 25, 2026, and the notice issued under Section 148 before the CIT(A) on all available legal grounds. The court further directed that if the appeal is filed within four weeks from the date of the order, the CIT(A) shall entertain it on merits without raising any issue of limitation, thereby condoning any delay. Additionally, if a stay application is filed before the Assessing Officer within the same four-week period, the Income Tax Department was directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner until the stay application is decided. The court clarified that the authorities would decide the appeal and stay application on merits and in accordance with law if filed within the stipulated time. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bharti Manohar Manchandya, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order disposing of objections dated March 6, 2026. The writ petition was filed on March 26, 2026. However, the Assessing Officer had already passed an Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act on March 25, 2026, one day prior to the filing of the writ petition. The court noted that an alternate remedy under Section 246A was available to challenge both the notice and the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternate remedy available to challenge the notice issued under Section 148 and the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail of the alternate remedy. He raised a concern regarding the issue of limitation in filing the appeal and requested the court to safeguard the petitioner's interest concerning condonation of delay. He also stated that a stay application would be filed before the Assessing Officer, and until it was decided, no coercive action should be taken. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue was heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

7-WP-7023-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7023 OF 2026 Bharti Manohar Manchandya .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Kalyan and Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Sham Walve, with Adv. Sameer Dalal and Adv. Bhavik Chheda, for the Petitioner. Adv. Akhileshwar Sharma, for the Respondent-Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 24, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned notice dated 31st August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “IT Act”) as well as the order disposing of objections dated 6th March 2026 and any consequential notice/orders arising therefrom. 2. It appears that the above Writ Petition was filed on 26th March 2026, and the Assessing Officer passed the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act one day prior thereto, i.e., on 25th Page 1 of 3 AUGUST 24, 2026 Darshan Patil 2026:BHC-AS:34926-DB

7-WP-7023-2026.doc

March 2026. When we pointed out to Mr. Walve, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, that in the facts of the present case an alternate remedy is available under Section 246A, not only to challenge the Assessment Order, but also the notice issued under Section 148, Mr. Walve, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the above Writ Petition with liberty to avail of the alternate remedy. He, however, submitted that the issue of limitation would arise in filing the above Appeal and hence requested this Court to safeguard the interest of the Petitioner regarding condonation of delay. He also submitted that along with his Appeal, he would file a Stay Application before the Assessing Officer, and until the Stay Application is decided, no coercive action be taken against the Petitioner pursuant to the Assessment Order dated 25th March 2026 already passed against the Petitioner. 3. Having heard Mr. Walve, as well as Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, we dispose of the above Writ Petition as withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioner to not only challenge the Assessment Order dated 25th March 2026, but also the notice issued under Section 148, before the CIT(A) on all grounds available to the Petitioner in law. Page 2 of 3 AUGUST 24, 2026 Darshan Patil

7-WP-7023-2026.doc

4.

We further direct that if the Appeal is filed by the Petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today, the Appeal shall be entertained by the CIT(A) on merits and without raising any issue of limitation. In other words, any delay in filing the aforesaid Appeal is hereby condoned. As stated by Mr. Walve, if the Stay Application is filed before the Assessing Officer within a period of 4 weeks from today, the Income Tax Department shall not take any coercive action against the Petitioner until the Stay Application is decided by the Assessing Officer. 5. It is needless to clarify that if the Appeal and the Stay Application are filed within the stipulated time, the concerned authorities shall decide the same on all grounds raised before it on merits and in accordance with law. 6. The above Writ Petition is accordingly disposed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. 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. [FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 AUGUST 24, 2026 Darshan Patil Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 15:25:40

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →