HARI MULCHAND BHATIA AY 2019 20 vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Thane
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Petitioner to pursue their appeal already filed before the CIT (Appeals) against the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and the impugned Assessment Order. The Court kept open all contentions challenging the Notice and the Assessment Order, including those raised in the Writ Petition, for agitation before the CIT (Appeals). It was further directed that until the Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) is decided, the impugned Assessment Order shall not be acted upon. The Court clarified that all contentions of all parties are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT (Appeals) and will be decided by the CIT (Appeals) on its own merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.
What were the facts?
The Petitioner, Hari Mulchand Bhatia, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a Notice dated 20.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an Assessment Order dated 27.02.2025. The assessment year in question is 2019-20. The Petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders and prevent the respondents, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, from proceeding further with re-assessment or any consequential action. The Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that an appeal against the Assessment Order has already been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and is pending.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to pursue their appeal before the CIT (Appeals) against the impugned Notice and Assessment Order, while simultaneously challenging them through a Writ Petition. Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner relies on the Bombay High Court's decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer, which, in similar circumstances, directed parties to pursue their pending appeals and kept all contentions open, stipulating that the impugned Assessment Order would not be acted upon until the appeal was decided. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Respondents did not dispute the Petitioner's position regarding the pending appeal and its undecided status.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order. (b) All contentions challenging the impugned Notice and the Assessment Order, on all grounds available to the Petitioner, including the ones raised in the present Writ Petition, are kept open to be agitated before the CIT Appeals. (c) Until the Appeal before CIT Appeals is decided, the impugned Assessment Order shall not be acted upon.
It is once again clarified that all contentions of all parties are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT Appeals and which shall be decided by the CIT Appeals on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. MARCH 25, 2026 Mohite
6 wp3758-26.doc
This order will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] MARCH 25, 2026 Mohite
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026