PANDHE ANIL VASANTRAO vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/13311/2023HC BombayHCBM07040632202328 March 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 petition would be covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 17th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and the petitioner was free to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, likely related to reassessment proceedings and limitation), the same relief should be granted.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pandhe Anil Vasantrao, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessment year in question is 2014-2015. The petitioner is challenging a notice dated 17th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and a notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The revenue was represented by Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 17th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside? (Question of law) The petitioner contended that the issues in the petition would be covered by a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The revenue's counsel agreed with this contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 917-aswp-13311-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13311 OF 2023 Pandhe Anil Vasantrao …Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 & Ors. …Respondents Ms. Simoni Chouhan i/b Ms. Rashmi Vyas for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 28th March 2024 PC:-

1.

Mr. Sharma undertakes to file vakalatnama within one week. Registry to take the same on file.

2.

Counsel for Petitioner states that this petition relates to Assessment Year 2014-2015. The issue in this petition will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.

1.

Counsel for Respondents agrees.

3.

Therefore, impugned notice dated 17th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), impugned order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice also dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in the petition are hereby quashed and set aside.

1.

Writ Petition No. 450 of 2023 dated 28th February 2024. Gitalaxmi

2/2 917-aswp-13311-2023.doc Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside.

4.

Petition disposed.

5.

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 arise in other matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.04.01 10:36:23 +0545

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →