MOHAN LIFESPACES LLP AY 2019 20 vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 THANE AND ORS
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 Section 148 notice and the 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 for the CIT Appeals to decide on its merits and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition was disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs.
What were the facts?
The Petitioner, Mohan Lifespaces LLP, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a Notice dated March 20, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, and an Assessment Order dated March 24, 2025. The assessment year in question is A.Y. 2019-20. The Petitioner sought to quash these documents and prevent the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others) from proceeding with re-assessment or any consequential actions. The Petitioner's counsel informed the Court that an appeal against the impugned Assessment Order has already been filed and is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT Appeals). The Revenue did not dispute this fact.
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. (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann.com 303 (Bombay). This precedent suggests that in similar circumstances, parties should pursue their pending appeals, and the High Court may direct that the impugned order not be acted upon until the appeal is decided, keeping all contentions open. Revenue's Contention: 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
16-wp-2148-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2148 OF 2026 Mohan Lifespaces LLP .. Petitioner. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1, Thane & Others .. Respondents Adv. Sham Walve with Adv. Bhavik Chheda, Adv. Tarang Mehta and Adv. Disha Mehta i/b. Sameer Dalal, for the Petitioner. Adv. Ashok Kotangle with Adv. Suresh Kabra, Adv. Smita Thakur, Adv. Kishore Walanju with Adv. Nikhil Kamble, for Respondents-Revenue.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2026 P. C. 1 The above Writ Petition relates to A.Y. 2019 – 20 and is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for all records of the Petitioner’s case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the Impugned Notice dated 20.03.2024 issued u/s 148 of the Act (Ex. C) and the Assessment Order dated 24.03.2025 (Ex. R); FEBRUARY 16, 2026 S.R.JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI Date: 2026.02.20 10:20:26 +0530
16-wp-2148-2026.doc
b) Issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction in nature of Prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering the Respondents herein to permanently refrain from giving effect to and/or proceeding further by way of re-assessment or otherwise in any manner in respect of the Impugned Notice dated 20.03.2024 issued u/s 148 of the Act (Ex. C) and the Assessment Order dated 24.03.2025 (Ex. R) and any consequential action thereof;” 2 Mr. Walve, 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 Appeals’). 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 the 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. Mr. Kotangle, the learned counsel for the Respondents does not dispute the said position and the fact that the Appeal is yet to be decided.
3 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 FEBRUARY 16, 2026 S.R.JOSHI
16-wp-2148-2026.doc
CIT Appeals 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 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. 4 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. 5 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6 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.] FEBRUARY 16, 2026 S.R.JOSHI
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. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026