MOHAMMAD NAYEEM CHOUDHARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/10273/2025HC BombayHCBM01023335202506 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, after hearing the arguments for some time and indicating an inclination not to entertain the Writ Petition, granted the petitioner's request. The Court held that the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail of the alternate remedy by filing an Appeal. The Court further directed that if there were any issues with limitation regarding the proposed appeal(s), the CIT (Appeals) shall condone the delay. The appeal(s), concerning both the Assessment Order and the Penalty Order, are to be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammad Nayeem Choudhary, filed a Writ Petition (WP) No. 10273 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court challenging an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The matter was argued before the Court. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is not detailed, other than the fact that the petition was argued.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the Court was whether to entertain the Writ Petition. The petitioner, after some arguments, sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The petitioner's contention was to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail of the alternate remedy by filing an Appeal. The respondents' contentions are not recorded in the judgment, as the matter was disposed of based on the petitioner's request.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

18 wp10273-25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2025 Mohammad Nayeem Choudhary .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Pune and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sanket Bora a/w Ms.Vidhi Punmiya a/w Ms.Amiya Ranjan Das i/b M/s.SPCM Legal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashok Kotangale a/w Ms.Sunita Thakur a/w Mr.Suresh Kabra, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 6, 2026 P. C. 1. After the above Writ Petition was argued for some time and we were not inclined to entertain it, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the above Writ Petition with liberty to avail of the alternate remedy by filing an Appeal. 2. Considering the aforesaid stand of the Petitioner, the above Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. Page 1 of 2 JANUARY 6, 2026 Mohite TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.01.13 19:13:56 +0530

18 wp10273-25.doc

3.

If there is any issue with reference to limitation, the same shall be condoned by the CIT (Appeals) and the Appeal/s proposed to be filed by the Petitioner, not only in relation to the Assessment Order but also the Penalty Order, shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. 4. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ 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.] Page 2 of 2 JANUARY 6, 2026 Mohite

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →