HARINATH SANGRAMAPPA KALPE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/14176/2026HC BombayHCBM03050918202515 October 20262 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, has not delivered a final decision on the merits of the case. Instead, the court has issued notice to the respondents and granted ad interim relief. The court has stayed the operation of the notice under Section 148 dated March 30, 2025, for AY 2015-16, pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. This interim order indicates that the court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's challenge to the validity of the notice based on the ten-year limitation period. The court has not yet decided on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the applicability of Section 153C and the ten-year block period. The operative direction is the stay of the impugned notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harinath Sangramappa Kalpe, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 30, 2026, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner contends that this notice is beyond the ten-year period stipulated under Section 153C of the Act. The petition relies on decisions from the Delhi High Court in 'Synod Farms and Infra Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Delhi', 'Pankaj Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another', and 'Dinesh Jindal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax'. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer Ward 1 and others. The Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, issued notice to the respondents, with a returnable date of December 3, 2026. Mr. Aditya Sikchi waived service for respondents No. 1 and 2. The court granted ad interim relief, staying the operation of the notice under Section 148 dated March 30, 2025, for AY 2015-16, pending the final disposal of the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 30, 2026, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16, is valid when it is issued beyond the ten-year period contemplated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notice issued under Section 148 is beyond the ten-year block period as stipulated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, making it invalid. The petitioner relies on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in 'Synod Farms and Infra Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Delhi', 'Pankaj Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another', and 'Dinesh Jindal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax' to support this contention. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
{1} wp14176-26.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14176 OF 2026 Harinath Sangramappa Kalpe PETITIONER VERSUS Income Tax Officer Ward 1 and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar and Ms. Hetal Laghane, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Aditya N. Sikchi, Advocate for Respondents N.1 and 2 ....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 15 th OCTOBER, 2026

ORDER :

1.

This Petition challenges notice dated 30th March, 2026, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in case of “Synod Farms and Infra Central, Delhi” reported in (2025) 172 Taxmann.com 723 (Delhi), order dated 14th January, 2025 passed in W.P. (C.) No. 317 of 2025 and CM Appeal. 1501-02/2025 [Pankaj Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Another] and in case of “Dinesh Jindal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax”,

{2} wp14176-26.doc reported in [2024] 164 taxmann.com 746 (Delhi).

2.

It is the case of the Petitioner that notice dated 30th March, 2026 issued under Section 148 is beyond the period of ten years block as contemplated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.

3.

Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 3rd December, 2026. Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Sikchi waives service for Respondents No.1 and 2. 4. In the meanwhile, there shall be ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause “C”, which is as follows: “C. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the said Notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2025 for A. Y. 2015-16”

[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]

[ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE

drp/wp14176-26.doc

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →