VINOD SANTOSHKUMAR DHANKANI vs. ASSI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/10854/2022HC BombayHCBM01036451202215 April 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 issue in the petition was covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the petition was disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It also clarified that the petitioner may independently raise other contentions if the need arises in the future. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is squarely covered by a binding precedent of the same court, the authorities must follow it, leading to the quashing of notices/orders that are inconsistent with the precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinod Santoshkumar Dhankani, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue in the petition would be covered by a recent judgment of the same court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Revenue's counsel agreed with this submission. The High Court considered the matter based on this agreement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue in the present writ petition is covered by the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. No specific authorities or precedents were named by the petitioner beyond this reference. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Revenue agreed with the petitioner's submission that the issue is covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 404-aswp-10854-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10854 OF 2022 Vinod SantoshKumar Dhankani …Petitioner Versus Assi. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 And Ors …Respondents Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava, with Mr. Saurabh Shrivastava, for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, with Ms. Samiksha Kanani, for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 15th APRIL, 2024 PC:- 1 Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava states that the issue in this petition will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.1 Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma agrees. 2 Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the petition are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 3 Petition disposed. 1 2024 SCC Online Bom. 681 Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.04.16 14:43:33 +0530

2/2 404-aswp-10854-2022.doc 4 Since we have disposed this petition only on the issue of limitation, petitioner may raise the other contentions raised in this petition independently, if the need arises in matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →