GEETA AMOL TAPADIA LRS OF AMOL RAMKISHAN TAPADIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/8280/2024HC BombayHCBM03028559202407 August 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court has not decided the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this excerpt. Instead, the court has issued procedural directions. It has mandated that all Writ Petitions challenging the validity of Section 147-A be identified and transferred to the Principal Seat of the High Court. Petitioners are permitted to amend their petitions to include challenges to this section within a specified timeframe. The court has also allowed petitioners to opt out of transferring certain matters to the Principal Seat by filing a Pursis. The judgment's primary focus is on the administrative transfer of cases to facilitate a consolidated hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 147-A at the Principal Seat.

What were the facts?

The judgment concerns numerous Writ Petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. These petitions were listed in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated 10.04.2026 in Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh. The core of the proceedings involves petitioners challenging the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act. The court directed advocates to identify matters where this specific section is challenged and to transfer them to the Principal Seat for hearing. Petitioners were granted a week to amend their petitions to challenge Section 147-A, with further time allowed after transfer if necessary. Matters not on the board were also to be transferred to the Principal Seat.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is constitutionally valid. (Question of law) The assessee (petitioners) likely argued that Section 147-A is invalid, potentially on grounds of being arbitrary, discriminatory, or violating fundamental rights, though specific arguments are not detailed in this excerpt. The revenue (respondents) would have defended the validity of the section. The judgment does not record specific arguments from either side regarding the validity of Section 147-A, nor does it name any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by the parties in this excerpt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 195 to 226 (i).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 196 WRIT PETITION NO. 10322 OF 2022 SAGAR SHRIVALLABH LOYA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER ... 197 WRIT PETITION NO. 10325 OF 2022 198 WRIT PETITION NO. 10360 OF 2022 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 10557 OF 2022 201 WRIT PETITION NO. 10622 OF 2022 202 WRIT PETITION NO. 10775 OF 2022 203 WRIT PETITION NO. 12367 OF 2022 204 WRIT PETITION NO. 12371 OF 2022 206 WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2023 207 WRIT PETITION NO. 2459 OF 2023 209 WRIT PETITION NO. 5018 OF 2023 210 WRIT PETITION NO. 5117 OF 2023 211 WRIT PETITION NO. 5379 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5398 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5399 OF 2023 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5400 OF 2023 212 WRIT PETITION NO. 11995 OF 2023 213 WRIT PETITION NO. 13385 OF 2023 214 WRIT PETITION NO. 14755 OF 2023 215 WRIT PETITION NO. 3245 OF 2024 216 WRIT PETITION NO. 4429 OF 2024 217 WRIT PETITION NO. 4674 OF 2024 218 WRIT PETITION NO. 5329 OF 2024 219 WRIT PETITION NO. 5399 OF 2024 220 WRIT PETITION NO. 5409 OF 2024 221 WRIT PETITION NO. 5415 OF 2024 222 WRIT PETITION NO. 5416 OF 2024 223 WRIT PETITION NO. 5683 OF 2024 224 WRIT PETITION NO. 5695 OF 2024 225 WRIT PETITION NO. 7914 OF 2024

2 195 to 226 (i).doc

226 WRIT PETITION NO. 8280 OF 2024 … WRIT PETITION NO. 11423 OF 2025 PAWANKUMAR RAJENDRA MOTHA VS. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA AND OTHERS … AND WRIT PETITION NO. 11424 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 11425 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 11427 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 12951 OF 2025 ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Chandak Raviraj R.,Mr. Ram Deepak Heda,Mr. Shah Subodh P.,Mr. Sanket Bora in respective Writ Petitions Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Sharma Alok Madangopal, Mr. Bangar Ravi R.,Ms.Mrs. Kalpalata Patil -Bharaswadkar,Ms. M.G. Kasturkar, Ms. Jadhav Auumaheshwari S. in respective Writ Petitions …

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT : . All these Writ Petitions are listed before this Court in compliance of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 10.04.2026 in Income Tax Officer, Ward2(1), Chandigarh vs. Tej Pratap Singh Diary No. (S) 2196 of 2026 alongwith connected SLP’s. 2. The respective Advocates are requested to give list of the matters in which they intend to challenge the validity of Section 147-A of the Income Tax Act and these matters be transferred immediately to the Principal Seat.

3 195 to 226 (i).doc

3.

The petitioners are permitted to carry out the amendment challenging the validity of Section 147- A within one week from today. In all the matters where amendments are carried out, be transferred to the Principal Seat as the similar group is kept on 31.08.2026 for final hearing. 4. Following matters are not on Board, upon mentioning, taken on Board and are to be transferred to the Principal Seat : WRIT PETITION NO. 11423 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 11424 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 11425 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 11427 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO. 12951 OF 2025 5. If the amendment is necessary and is not carried out and the matters are transferred, the amendment shall be carried out within one

(01) week, after the matters are transferred to the Principal Seat. 6. The petitioners are at liberty to file Pursis in the matters which they intend not to be transferred to Principal Seat. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. ) vsj..

More judgments on Section 147-A

All 43 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →