KISHORE BACHUBHAI MUJAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/3308/2022HC BombayHCBM01011599202221 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the disposal order dated March 11, 2022, was unreasoned. The Court found that the objections filed by the petitioner were not adequately dealt with, and the order merely stated that they were considered and found unacceptable and untenable in the eyes of law. The Court emphasized that when disposing of objections, the Assessing Officer must provide proper reasons explaining why income is believed to have escaped assessment. Furthermore, the Officer must consider the evidence submitted by the assessee to substantiate their claim that reopening is not justified. On these grounds, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide the petitioner's objections afresh, providing proper reasons. Additionally, in the peculiar facts of the case, the Court directed that a personal hearing be granted to the petitioner before passing the fresh order on objections, clarifying this direction is not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kishore Bachubhai Mujat, filed a writ petition challenging a Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 30, 2021. In response to this notice and the reasons for reopening, the petitioner submitted objections on August 9, 2021. These objections were disposed of by an order dated March 11, 2022. The petitioner contended that this disposal order was unreasoned, failing to address the specific objections raised and merely stating they were found unacceptable and untenable in law. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer should provide proper reasons for income escaping assessment and consider the evidence submitted to support the contention that reopening was not warranted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the disposal order dated March 11, 2022, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, disposing of the petitioner's objections to the Section 148 notice, was reasoned and dealt with the specific contentions raised by the assessee, thereby complying with the principles of natural justice and the requirements of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the disposal order was unreasoned, as it did not address the specific objections filed on August 9, 2021, and merely stated that the objections were considered and found unacceptable and untenable. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer must provide proper reasons for concluding that income had escaped assessment and must consider the evidence produced by the assessee to demonstrate that reopening was not warranted. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments regarding the unreasoned order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

sr.8-wp-3308-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3308 OF 2022 Kishore Bachubhai Mujat .. Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Ritika Agarwal a/w Adv. Yaminee Verma i/b ACE Legal for the Petitioner. Adv. Arjun Gupta for the Respondents/Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: APRIL 21, 2026 P. C. 1. The above Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the Notice under Section 148 the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 30th March, 2021. On the record, we find that in response to this Notice under Section 148 and the reasons recorded for reopening, the Petitioner filed his objections on 9th August 2021. These objections were disposed of by Order dated 11th March, 2022. When we go through this Order, we find that the Order is unreasoned in as much as, we find that the objections of the Petitioner have not been dealt with. All that is stated is that the Assessee’s objections had been looked into and considered and were found unacceptable and untenable in the eyes Page 1 of 3 APRIL 21, 2026 Mansi shelke TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.04.22 15:50:01 +0530

sr.8-wp-3308-2022.doc

of law. We are of the view that whilst disposing of the objections of the Petitioner, proper reasons are to be given as to why the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the income of the Petitioner has escaped assessment. In this regard, the Officer also has to take into consideration the evidence produced by the Petitioner to substantiate his contentions that reopening is not warranted in the present case. 2.

On this short ground, we dispose of this Writ Petition by directing the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide the objections of the Petitioner afresh by giving proper reasons. 3.

In the peculiar facts of this case, we direct that before any fresh Order is passed on the objections of the Petitioner, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall give a personal hearing to the Petitioner. We make it clear that this direction is passed only in the peculiar facts of this case and is not to be treated as a precedent in any other case. 4.

The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Page 2 of 3 APRIL 21, 2026 Mansi shelke

sr.8-wp-3308-2022.doc

5.

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 3 of 3 APRIL 21, 2026 Mansi shelke

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →