AMAR DHANANJAY PATIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/11665/2025HC BombayHCBM07046066202515 October 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK,HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the controversy was squarely covered by its own decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the court directed that the petitioner shall pursue his appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order. The petitioner was permitted to raise contentions regarding the impugned notice and order being invalid, in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited. The court also allowed the petitioner to file an application before the Appellate Authority praying that the appeal be disposed of in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision. If such an application were made, the Appellate Authority was directed to expeditiously consider it and all contentions raised. Until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum were decided, the impugned assessment was not to be acted upon. All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings were expressly kept open. The ratio is that appellate authorities should consider pending appeals in light of relevant High Court decisions, even if an SLP is pending, and assessment orders should be stayed pending such appellate decisions.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Amar Dhananjay Patil (the petitioner) against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur, and others (respondents). The petitioner challenged an assessment order. The revenue argued that while the petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, an SLP filed by the Income Tax Department challenging that decision was pending. The revenue contended that the court should not independently examine the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that the controversy was covered by another Bombay High Court decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue his appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order, raising contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice and order in light of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. (Question of law and fact, relying on principles of natural justice and statutory interpretation). 2. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. (Question of procedure and application of precedent). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. to argue for the invalidity of the assessment order and notice. The petitioner sought to pursue this line of argument before the appellate authorities. Revenue's contentions: The revenue opposed the relief sought by the petitioner. They pointed out that an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, suggesting that the court should not independently examine the petitioner's contentions. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's right to appeal or file an application before the appellate authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

913-WP-11665-2025.doc Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11665 OF 2025 Amar Dhananjay Patil ] Petitioner versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ] Central Circle, Kolhapur and others ] Respondents ….. Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w Mr. Bhavik Chheda i/b Mr. Kalpesh Patil, for Petitioner. Ms. Smita Thakur (through V.C.) for Respondent – Income Tax. Mr. Vijay Killedar, for Respondent No.4. …..

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2025. ORAL ORDER: [PER M.S. KARNIK, J.] 1. Heard Mr. Walve, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent – Income Tax and Mr. Killedar, learned Counsel for respondent No.4. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the relief as prayed for in this petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner relied upon the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd 1 of 3 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.10.16 10:44:01 +0530

913-WP-11665-2025.doc Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income – tax [2024] 162 taxmann. com. 225 (Bombay), the SLP filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra) is pending for consideration. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that this Court to independently examine the contentions raised by the petitioner. 3. In our opinion, the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Hence, the following order; (a) The petitioner shall pursue his appeal (s) already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order. It is open to the petitioner to raise contentions on the impugned notice and the order being invalid, in the light of the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). (b) We also permit the petitioner to file an application before the Appellate Authority praying that the appeal be disposed of in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). If such an interim application is made, certainly the Appellate Authority shall expeditiously consider the petitioner’s application and all contentions raised thereon. 2 of 3

913-WP-11665-2025.doc (c) Until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum are decided, the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon. (d) All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings are expressly kept open. 4. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH. J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]

3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →