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

PDF · subscribers
MCA/240/2026HC BombayHCBM05001789202604 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 decided to clarify its previous order dated April 27, 2026. The Court found that the initial recording, stating that Respondent No. 3 would have to be considered at liberty to choose whether to proceed with the Faceless Assessment if the Petitioner were to succeed, was not accurate in reflecting the consequences of the petitioner's potential success. Instead, the Court clarified 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. Consequently, the consequential assessment proceedings would not be allowed to be sustained. This clarification was to be read as forming part of the original order after deleting the previously recorded lines. The application was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns an application for speaking to the minutes of an order passed by the Bombay High Court at Goa on April 27, 2026. The original challenge was in Writ Petition No. 293 of 2026, filed by Sankalp Padmanabh Amonkar against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Panaji, and others. The applicant sought a clarification or correction of the High Court's previous order concerning the implications of a potential success in their challenge to the vires of amendments to Sections 147A and 292BC of the Income Tax Act. The dispute revolved around the validity of faceless assessment proceedings and the jurisdiction of the notice issued under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court's previous order accurately reflected the implications of the petitioner succeeding in their challenge to the vires of amendments to Sections 147A and 292BC of the Income Tax Act, particularly concerning the liberty of Respondent No. 3 to proceed with faceless assessment. The Petitioner argued for a clarification of the order to accurately reflect that if they succeeded in their challenge, the notice under Section 148 would be rendered without jurisdiction, thus invalidating consequential assessment proceedings. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments in this application for speaking to the minutes, but their stance would have been implicitly against the petitioner's requested clarification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A,Section 292BC,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

910 MCA 240 2026 siddhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2026 SANKALP PADMANABH 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

910 MCA 240 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 11:13:07

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →