JITENDRA VILAS BANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14 1 PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2936/2026HC BombayHCBM01008631202616 March 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal already filed before the CIT (A) against the impugned notice issued under Section 148 and the impugned Assessment Order. All contentions challenging the impugned notice and the Assessment Order, on all grounds available to the petitioner, including those raised in the writ petition, were kept open to be agitated before the CIT (A). The Court further ordered that until the appeal before the CIT (A) is decided, the impugned Assessment Order and any consequential notices emanating therefrom shall not be acted upon. The High Court clarified that all contentions of all parties are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT (A) and will be decided by the CIT (A) on its own merits and in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jitendra Vilas Bankar, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice and subsequent actions/orders by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1), Pune, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the impugned notice and all subsequent actions, and to declare the authorities' actions illegal and non-maintainable. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that an appeal challenging the assessment order had already been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and was pending. The revenue's counsel did not dispute this fact. The High Court noted that the appeal was pending and disposed of the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an assessment order and subsequent notices when an appeal against the assessment order is already pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer (Bombay) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 303, where the High Court directed parties to pursue their pending appeals against impugned assessment orders and kept contentions open, stipulating that the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
39.wp.2936.26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2936 OF 2026 Jitendra Vilas Bankar .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1), Pune & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Venkatesh Shinde, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents/ Revenue. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: MARCH 16, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition relates to A.Y. 2020-21 and is filed seeking the following reliefs: “A) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus/any other similar writ order or direction for quashing and setting aside the Impugned Notice 1 and all other subsequent actions/orders/notice/ issued by the Respondent No.1; B) ”The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus/ any other similar writ order or direction thereby declaring that the actions taken by the Respondent No. 1 and 2 authorities are illegal and non- maintainable;” Page 1 of 3 MARCH 16, 2026 Aswale ANJALI TUSHAR ASWALE Digitally signed by ANJALI TUSHAR ASWALE Date: 2026.03.18 15:07:21 +0530 39.wp.2936.26.doc 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly pointed out that the Petitioner has filed an Appeal challenging the impugned Assessment Order, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(‘CIT (A’)]. He relies on the decision of this Court in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann.com 303 (Bombay) wherein under similar circumstances, this Court had directed to parties to pursue its Appeal already filed against the impugned Assessment Order and expressly kept open all contentions while observing that until the Appeal is decided, the impugned Assessment Order would not be acted upon. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents does not dispute the said position and the fact that the Appeal is yet to be decided. 4. Since, it is fairly conceded at the bar that the Appeal is pending, we dispose the above Petition by passing the following order: - (a) The Petitioner shall pursue its Appeal already filed before the CIT (A) against the impugned Notice issued under Section 148, as 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 MARCH 16, 2026 Aswale

39.

wp.2936.26.doc

raised in the present Writ Petition are kept open to be agitated before the CIT (A). (c) Until the Appeal before CIT (A) is decided the impugned Assessment Order and any consequential notices emanating therefrom, shall not be acted upon.

5.

It is once again clarified that all contentions of all parties are expressly kept open to be agitated before the CIT (A) and which shall be decided by the CIT (A) on its own merits and in accordance with law.

6.

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

7.

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 16, 2026 Aswale

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →