KALPANA PRAVIN SANGHVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 3 PUNE

PDF · subscribers
WP/3178/2023HC BombayHCBM01009302202322 April 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, agreeing with both the petitioner and the respondents that the issue was covered by the cited judgments, allowed the petition. The court did not delve into the specific details of the case but relied on the precedents. The operative direction was to issue a writ of Certiorari or a similar writ, quashing the impugned notices under Section 153C dated January 31, 2022, for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The court found these notices to be wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary, as per the prayer clause (b) of the petition. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kalpana Pravin Sanghvi, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These notices were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The petitioner sought to quash these notices as being without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2018-19, and 2019-20 are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in the petition is covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxation. Revenue's contention: The respondents agreed with the petitioner's submission that the issue is covered by the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 457-WP-3178-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3178 OF 2023 Kalpana Pravin Sanghvi

….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune and Anr. …Respondents ---- Mr. Mihir C. Naniwadekar a/w Ms. Rucha Vaidya and Mr. Ruturaj H. Gurjar for Petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. Nikitesh Kotangle and Mr. Ajinkya Bhosale for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 23rd APRIL 2024 P.C. :

1.

Mr. Naniwadekar states that the issue in this petition is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – 3 vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.2 petition in terms of prayer clause – (b) which reads as under : (b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the 1 (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC) 2 (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) 3 (2023) 459 ITR 100 (Bombay) Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.04.24 18:09:59 +0530

2/2 457-WP-3178-2023.doc Impugned Notices under s 153C dated 31 January 2022 for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2018-19 and 2019-20 (Exhibits B-1 to B-5) as being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary;

3.

Petition disposed. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →