MOHAN LIFESPACES LLP AY 2021 22 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 appeal already filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against 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). The Court further directed that until the Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) is decided, the impugned Assessment Order shall not be acted upon. It was 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, Mohan Lifespaces LLP, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a Notice dated 14.09.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an Assessment Order dated 16.03.2025. The assessment year in question is 2021-22. The Petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders and prevent the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others) from proceeding further with re-assessment. The Petitioner's counsel submitted that an appeal against 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.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a Writ Petition challenging a Notice under Section 148 and an Assessment Order 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 Bombay High Court's decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer, wherein under similar circumstances, the Court directed parties to pursue their pending appeal and kept contentions open. The Petitioner sought a similar direction. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not dispute the pendency of the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and did not object to the High Court disposing of the petition in terms of the Petitioner pursuing the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
17-wp-2149-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2149 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. 2021 – 22 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 l egality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the Impugned Notice dated 14.09.2023 issued u/s 148 of the Act (Ex. C) and the Assessment Order dated 16.03.2025 (Ex. N); FEBRUARY 16, 2026 S.R.JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI SMITA RAJNIKANT JOSHI Date: 2026.02.20 10:20:27 +0530
17-wp-2149-2026.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 14.09.2023 issued u/s 148 of the Act (Ex. C) and the Assessment Order dated 16.03.2025 (Ex. N) 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: - FEBRUARY 16, 2026 S.R.JOSHI
17-wp-2149-2026.doc
(a) The Petitioner shall pursue its Appeal already filed before the 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 N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- 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