NEMIN VIRENDRA VORA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27(2) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/5761/2022HC BombayHCBM01018693202209 May 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petitions are covered by its earlier judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, any re-assessment orders, consequential demand notices, or penalty notices that may have been passed were also quashed and set aside. The Court also stipulated that any contentions raised in the petitions that were not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment would be kept open to be raised by the petitioners should the need arise in the future. The petitions were disposed of in accordance with this decision.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Excel Enterprises and Dr. K. Shivaram (representing other petitioners), filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any subsequent re-assessment or penalty notices. The respondents were various Income Tax Officers and other revenue authorities. The core of the petitions revolved around the validity of these notices. Both the petitioners and the respondents informed the Court that the present petitions would be covered by a prior judgment of the same Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors., pronounced on 3rd May 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential re-assessment or penalty notices are valid and should be quashed and set aside, in light of the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. (Assessee's contention: The notices are invalid and liable to be quashed. Revenue's contention: The notices are valid and the petitions should be dismissed, but they concur that the matter is covered by the Hexaware judgment). 2. Whether any contentions raised in the petitions not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment should be kept open for future adjudication. (Assessee's contention: Such contentions should be preserved. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but their concurrence on the Hexaware judgment implies agreement with the Court's approach).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP/5732/2022
WP/5761/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1/2 947-1051-aswp-5732-2022+.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (947) WRIT PETITION NO.5732 OF 2022 Excel Enterprises Mumbai …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents WITH (948) WRIT PETITION NO.5761 OF 2022 WITH (1050) WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.14063 OF 2024 WITH (1051) WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.14065 OF 2024 Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rahul Hakani, for Petitioner in WP/5732/2022 & 5761/2022. Ms. Ritika Agarwal, with Ms. Ayesha S. Ansari, i/b. ACE Legal, for Petitioner in WPST/14063/2024 & 14065/2024. Mr. Arjun Gupta, for Respondents-Revenue in WP/5732/2022, WPST/14063/2024 & WPST/14065/2024. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents-Revenue in WP/5761/2022. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 9th May 2024 PC:-

1.

We are informed by counsel for petitioners that these Petitions will be covered by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.1 Counsel for respondents concur. 1 Judgment pronounced on 3rd May 2024 in Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 Gaikwad RD

2/2 947-1051-aswp-5732-2022+.doc

2.

Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment order is passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside.

3.

Petitions disposed accordingly.

4.

Whichever contention raised in the petitions not covered by the Hexaware Technologies (Supra) is kept open to be raised, should the need arise. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gaikwad RD RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2024.05.13 20:27:08 +0530

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →