Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 3

PDF · subscribers
WP/11489/2025HC BombayHCBM01031636202518 November 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the Section 264 order. Instead, considering the statement made by the Revenue, the Court directed Respondent No.2 to decide the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within 30 days from the date of uploading of the order on the High Court website. The Court clarified that the Rectification Application would be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made by the Principal Commissioner in the Section 264 order. The High Court explicitly stated that it had not entered upon the merits of the matter, which would be decided by Respondent No.2. The Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated March 30, 2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (Respondent No.1) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Petitioner had previously filed a Rectification Application under Section 154 before Respondent No.2, which remained pending. As no decision was taken on the Section 154 application, the Petitioner pursued a revision under Section 264. The Revenue, through its counsel, confirmed the pendency of the Section 154 application and assured that it would be disposed of within 30 days of the order's upload.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should quash and set aside the order dated March 30, 2025, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the pendency of a Rectification Application under Section 154 of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that a Rectification Application under Section 154 was filed and was still pending. Consequently, the Petitioner was constrained to approach the revisional authority under Section 264. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue confirmed the pendency of the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner and stated that it would be disposed of within 30 days from the date of uploading of the High Court's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

24-WP-11489-25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11489 OF 2025 Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal .. Petitioner Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Ajay R. Singh a/w Mr. Akshay Pawar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Khanchandani, Advocates for the Respondent/Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2025 P. C. 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 30th March 2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. After we heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner for some time and when we were not inclined to set aside the order passed under section 264, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that prior to filing a Revision under section 264, the Petitioner Page 1 of 3 NOVEMBER 18, 2025 Nesarikar MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date: 2025.11.21 11:38:35 +0530

24-WP-11489-25.odt

had approached Respondent No.2 by filing a Rectification Application under section 154. That Rectification Application is still pending. Since no decision was taken on the Rectification Application filed under section 154, the Petitioner was constrained to approach the first Respondent seeking a revision under section 264. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on instructions, confirmed that the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner is still pending before Respondent No.2. He further stated, on instructions, that Respondent No.2 shall dispose of the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court website. 4. Considering the statement made on behalf of the Revenue, we direct Respondent No.2 to decide the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of 30 days from the date of uploading of this order on the High Court website. 5. It is needless to clarify that the above mentioned Rectification Application shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by first Page 2 of 3 NOVEMBER 18, 2025

24-WP-11489-25.odt

Respondent in the order dated 30th March 2025. We may further add that we have not entered upon the merits of the matter and the same shall be decided by the second Respondent while deciding the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner. 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 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. [ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR , J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 NOVEMBER 18, 2025

More judgments on Section 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →