HARI MULCHAND BHATIA AY 2017 18 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 its pending Appeal before the CIT Appeals against both the impugned Notice issued under Section 148 and the impugned Assessment Order. The Court explicitly kept open all contentions challenging the Notice and the Assessment Order, including those raised in the Writ Petition, to be agitated before the CIT Appeals. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the impugned Assessment Order shall not be acted upon until the Appeal before the CIT Appeals is decided. The Court clarified that all contentions of all parties are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT Appeals, which shall decide them on their own merits and in accordance with law. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court deferred the decision on merits to the appellate authority.
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 12.03.2025. These actions were taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1, Thane, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Petitioner sought to quash and set aside these impugned actions and to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further. During the proceedings, the Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that an Appeal against the Assessment Order had already been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT Appeals') and was pending.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition challenging a Section 148 notice and an Assessment Order when an Appeal against the Assessment Order is already pending before the CIT Appeals, and if so, what directions should be issued? (Question of law and procedure). The Petitioner argued that the High Court should provide relief by quashing the impugned notice and assessment order, or at least stay further proceedings. The Petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer, which directed parties to pursue their pending appeals and kept contentions open. The Revenue did not dispute the pendency of the Appeal before the CIT Appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
well as the impugned Assessment 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
5 wp3757-26.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 →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026