ABHAYKUMAR BANSILAL SANCHETI vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3 Pune

PDF · subscribers
WP/7165/2026HC BombayHCBM01020332202609 October 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Petitioner's appeal before the CIT(A) had been pending for six and a half years. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Court requested the CIT(A) to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of in these terms. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the Petitioner's claims regarding the quashing of orders or the release of bank accounts, as the primary relief sought and granted was the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The operative direction was to the CIT(A) to decide the pending appeal within the specified timeframe. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of based on the agreed-upon direction.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Abhaykumar Bansilal Sancheti, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging orders dated March 19, 2020, and March 4, 2026, by Respondent No. 2, and an order dated March 24, 2026, by Respondent No. 1. These orders rejected the Petitioner's applications for stay of demand. The Petitioner also challenged an attachment notice dated February 13, 2026, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, attaching his bank accounts. The assessment year in dispute is 2017-18, arising from an assessment order and demand notice dated December 25, 2019. The Petitioner's appeal against the assessment order, filed on January 23, 2020, was pending before the CIT(A) - 13, Pune (Respondent No. 3). The Petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders and the attachment notice, release of his bank accounts, and a prohibition against coercive recovery until the disposal of his appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated March 19, 2020, March 4, 2026, and March 24, 2026, rejecting his applications for stay of demand, and the attachment notice dated February 13, 2026, issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently direct the release of his attached bank accounts? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the propriety of demand stay rejections and attachment proceedings). 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Prohibition directing the Revenue to refrain from coercive recovery of the demand for AY 2017-18 until the disposal of his appeal before the CIT(A) and for six weeks thereafter? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the balance of convenience and the stage of proceedings). 3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the CIT(A) to expeditiously hear and dispose of his pending appeal? (Question of law, concerning the duty of statutory authorities to act expeditiously). Assessee's Contentions: The Petitioner primarily sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of his appeal pending before the CIT(A), as stated by his counsel. He also sought to quash the impugned orders and attachment notice and stay coercive recovery. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

29.

WP-7165-2026.doc Abhaykumar vs. Principal Commissioner of IT -3 & Ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7165 OF 2026 Abhaykumar Bansilal Sancheti .. Petitioner

V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents ______________________________________ Mr. Rohan Deshpande a/w Mr. Vihit Shah i/b Alisha Pinto for Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Khanchandani for Respondents – Revenue. _______________________________________ CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE : 9th OCTOBER 2026 P.C.: 1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India quashing the following: (i) the Impugned Orders dated 19 March 2020 (Exhibit G) and 4 March 2026 (Exhibit P) passed by Respondent No. 2, and dated 24 March 2026 (Exhibit T) passed by Respondent No. 1, rejecting the Petitioner's applications seeking stay of demand, and (ii) the Impugned Attachment Notice dated 13 February 2026 issued by Respondent No. 2 u/s 226(3) of the Act (Exhibit M) attaching the Petitioner's Accounts and thereby consequently direct the immediately release of attachment over the Petitioner's Accounts held with the Mahesh Sahakari Bank, Market Yard branch at Pune; (b) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Articles 226 and Page 1 of 3 ------------------------------------- Order dated 9th October 2026 SHUBHAM SHESHRAO GADHAVEPATIL Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SHESHRAO GADHAVEPATIL Date: 2026.10.13 13:17:06 +0530

29.

WP-7165-2026.doc Abhaykumar vs. Principal Commissioner of IT -3 & Ors. 227 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to refrain from taking any steps for coercive revery of demand under the Act against the Petitioner for AY 2017-18 under the Assessment Order and the Notice of Demand dated 25 December 2019, until the disposal of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner and pending before the Ld. CIT(A) / Respondent No. 3 and for a further period of 6 (six) weeks thereafter;

(c) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing the Ld. CIT(A)/Respondent No. 3 to expeditiously, and preferably within a time-bound period of 8 (eight) weeks from an order in this regard being passed, hear and finally dispose on its own merits and in accordance with law the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner under the Act, bearing reference number CIT (A), Pune-4/10694/2019-20 filed on 23 January 2020 against the Assessment Order 25 December 2019, and which Appeal is currently pending on file before the jurisdictional Ld. CIT(A) – 13, Pue/Respondent No. 3; 2. Despite the aforesaid reliefs, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner would be satisfied if the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (c), which essentially seeks a direction to Respondent No. 3 - CIT(A) to hear and decide the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 23rd January 2020, as expeditiously as possible. 3. Considering that the aforesaid appeal filed by the Petitioner has remained pending for the last six and a half years, and in the peculiar facts of this case, we request the CIT(A) to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of 12 weeks from today. Page 2 of 3 ------------------------------------- Order dated 9th October 2026

29.

WP-7165-2026.doc Abhaykumar vs. Principal Commissioner of IT -3 & Ors. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. 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.) Shubham Gadhavepatil Page 3 of 3 ------------------------------------- Order dated 9th October 2026

More judgments on Section 226(3)

All 95 judgments and leading authorities on Section 226(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →