M/S. EXCEL REALTY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers

IA/3194/2022HC BombayHCBM01033653202120 September 2025Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the Interim Application. It noted that the learned advocate for both respondents appeared and confirmed representation for Respondent No. 2. Consequently, the Court ordered that the Writ Petition be restored even with respect to Respondent No. 2. The order dated February 18, 2020, which had dismissed the Writ Petition, was set aside. The Interim Application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The principle applied is that where parties consent to the restoration of a case, and the procedural requirements are met, the court will grant it to ensure a fair hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Excel Realty, filed a Writ Petition (WP No. 13317 of 2018) against the Income Tax Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Incharge, Registrar (Judl.-I) on February 18, 2020. The assessee then filed an Interim Application (IA No. 3194 of 2022) seeking to restore the Writ Petition against Respondent No. 2 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax). The learned advocate for both respondents appeared and stated they would represent Respondent No. 2 as well. The High Court considered the application for restoration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition, which was dismissed on February 18, 2020, should be restored against Respondent No. 2, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee argued for the restoration of the Writ Petition, seeking to have the previous dismissal order set aside. The revenue, through its learned advocate, appeared and consented to the restoration of the Writ Petition against Respondent No. 2. No specific legal provisions were cited in the arguments presented to the court regarding the restoration itself, but the context implies a procedural matter concerning the continuation of the Writ Petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ca.ia.3194.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3194 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13317 OF 2018 M/s. Excel Realty .. Applicant / Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer and anr. .. Respondents Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Advocate for the Applicant / Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma , Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2025 P. C.

The above Interim Application is filed seeking to restore the above Writ Petition against Respondent No.2. 2. The above Writ Petition against Respondent No.2 was dismissed by order dated 18th February, 2020 passed by the Incharge, Registrar (Judl.-I).

Today, Mr. Sharma, the learned advocate appears on behalf of both the Respondents and says that he will be appearing not only for Respondent SEPTEMBER 20, 2025 Vina Khadpe,PS VINA ARVIND KHADPE VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2025.09.23 11:30:50 +0530

ca.ia.3194.2022.doc

No.1-Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), but also on behalf of Respondent No.2 – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3. 4. In light of the aforesaid, the above Writ Petition is restored even qua Respondent No.2, and the order passed on 18th February, 2020 is hereby set aside.

Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

This order will be 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.] SEPTEMBER 20, 2025 Vina Khadpe,PS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →