JITENDRA ANANT GUMASTE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1)

PDF · subscribers
WP/3001/2025HC BombayHCBM01006191202511 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE BHARATI DANGRE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had approached the court on January 30, 2025, and had chosen to pursue a writ petition. Given this, the court expected the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the period during which the matter was pending before the High Court when considering any potential delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Jitendra Anant Gumaste, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices under Section 156. The petition was filed on January 30, 2025. The Revenue was represented by Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani. The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Vidhi Punmiya, was confronted with the fact that an appeal lies against the impugned assessment order. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices under Section 156. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their counsel, acknowledged the availability of the appellate remedy and sought to withdraw the writ petition. The apprehension was raised regarding potential delay in filing the appeal, given the 30-day limitation period from the final assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the court's observation implies that the Revenue's position, or at least the court's understanding, was that an appeal was the appropriate recourse.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 14- wP 3001 of 2025.docx Tikam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3001 OF 2025 Jitendra Anant Gumaste …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ward 6 (1) …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Ms. Vidhi Punmiya a/w. Mr. Amiya R. Das a/w. Ms. Unnati Thakkar ib/ Mr. Sanket S. Bora,for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for the Respondent- Revenue ______________________________________________________ CORAM Bharati Dangre & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 11 March 2025 PC:- 1. On being confronted that the remedy of appeal lies against the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 147 r/w. 144 and the consequential notices served upon the petitioner under section 156, the learned counsel seeks withdrawal of the present writ petition. She is however apprehensive that since the appeal is required to be filed within 30 days of passing of the final asssessment order, the Appellate Authority may call for explanation for the delay. 2. We must note that the petitioner has approached this Court on 30 January, 2025 and since the petitioner had deemed it appropriate to pursue the writ before this Court in

2 14- wP 3001 of 2025.docx the wake of the hardship faced, we expect the Appellate Authority to take into consideration the period that lapsed when matter is pending before this Court. The petitioner however, is expected file an appeal within next two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 3. Writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

(Jitendra Jain, J) (Bharati Dangre, J)

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →