SHRADDHA SANKALP AMONKAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), PANAJI AND 3 ORS

PDF · subscribers
MCA/241/2026HC BombayHCBM05001788202604 May 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI MENEZES,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court clarified its earlier order dated 27.04.2026. The Court held that if the petitioner were to succeed in the writ petition, based on the challenge raised therein, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act would be rendered without jurisdiction. Consequently, the consequential assessment proceedings would not be allowed to be sustained. This clarification was made by deleting the previously recorded lines concerning the respondent's liberty to choose whether to proceed with faceless assessment and substituting them with the statement that the notice under Section 148 would be without jurisdiction, invalidating the assessment proceedings. The application was disposed of in terms of this clarification.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Miscellaneous Civil Application (MCA) filed by Shraddha Sankalp Amonkar (the applicant/petitioner) before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The application seeks to speak to the minutes of an earlier order dated 27.04.2026. The original challenge was in Writ Petition No. 280 of 2026, filed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Panaji, and other respondents. The core of the dispute revolved around the vires of amendments to Sections 147A and 292BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and their impact on faceless assessments and the validity of a notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amendments to Sections 147A and 292BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are ultra vires, and if so, what is the consequence for the faceless assessment proceedings against the petitioner? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 147A and 292BC). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner challenged the vires of the amendments to Sections 147A and 292BC of the Income Tax Act. If successful, this would impact the respondent's ability to proceed with the faceless assessment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments on the vires of the amendments or the consequences for the assessment proceedings. However, their participation as respondents implies a defense of the assessment actions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A,Section 292BC,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

911 MCA 241 2026 siddhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.280 OF 2026 SHRADDHA SANKALP AMONKAR ... APPLICANT Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), PANAJI AND 3 ORS ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Dharan Gandhi with Ms. Eesha Dukle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 4th May, 2026 P.C.

1.

This is an application for speaking to the minutes of our order dated 27.04.2026. 2. What was recorded by us based upon the challenge raised in the application is as follows. "Heard, considering the controversy raised before us, both in respect of the challenge to the vires of the amendment to Sections 147A and 292BC of the Income Tax Act, if the Petitioner were to succeed, Respondent no. 3 would have to be considered at liberty to choose whether to proceed with the Faceless Assessment of the Petitioner." 4th May, 2026

911 MCA 241 2026

3.

On going through the application, and considering the challenge in the petition, the aforementioned lines shall now stand deleted, and in substitution, we clarify that "...if the Petitioner were to succeed in the petition, based on the challenge raised therein, then the notice under Section 148 itself would be rendered without jurisdiction, and therefore the consequential assessment proceedings would not be allowed to be sustained."

4.

This clarification shall be read as forming a part of our order dated 27.04.2026 after deleting the lines stated above.

5.

The application is disposed of in the above terms. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 4th May, 2026 Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 06/05/2026 11:12:22

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →