AMAR DHANANJAY PATIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the controversy was squarely covered by its decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue his appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It was open for the petitioner to raise contentions regarding the impugned notice and order being invalid, specifically in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited. The Court also permitted the petitioner to file an application before the Appellate Authority praying for the appeal to be disposed of in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision. The Appellate Authority was directed to expeditiously consider such an application 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 petition was disposed of in these terms.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Amar Dhananjay Patil, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur challenging an assessment order. The respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, opposed the relief sought. The Revenue pointed out that while the petitioner relied on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, an SLP challenging that decision was pending. The High Court, however, found the controversy squarely covered by its own decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. vs. Income-tax Officer. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue his appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and allowed him to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice and order in light of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision. The petitioner was also permitted to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal based on the Hexaware decision. The impugned assessment was stayed until the appellate proceedings were decided, with all contentions kept open.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue his appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the assessment order in light of the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessee's contention). 2. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal based on the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision (Assessee's contention). 3. Whether the impugned assessment order should be stayed until the appellate proceedings are decided (Assessee's contention). The Revenue argued that since an SLP was pending against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. decision, the High Court should not independently examine the petitioner's contentions. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments against the other points raised by the petitioner.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
915-WP-11667-2025.doc Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11667 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 10:55:08 +0530
915-WP-11667-2025.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
915-WP-11667-2025.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 →- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
