MAHESH REVANSIDDH PATIL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) SOLAPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/3500/2023HC BombayHCBM07013074202318 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 issue in the writ petition was covered by the recent judgment of the Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice 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. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same High Court covers the issue, subsequent similar matters should follow that precedent, particularly concerning procedural aspects like limitation in reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh Revansiddh Patil, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Solapur and others. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the issue in the petition was covered by a recent judgment of the same court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The counsel for the revenue agreed with this submission. The High Court noted that the petition was disposed of solely on the issue of limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside on the grounds raised by the petitioner, specifically in light of the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue in the present petition is covered by the recent judgment of the High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Revenue) agreed that the issue in the petition 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

1/2 407-aswp-3500-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3500 OF 2023 Mahesh Revansiddh Patil …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Solapur & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Rajesh Poojary, i/by Mint & Confreres, for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 18th March, 2024 PC:-

1.

Counsel for Petitioner states that 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.

2.

Therefore, impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the notice 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. 4 Since we have disposed this petition only on the issue of 1 Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 dtd. 28th February 2024. Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.03.19 12:41:06 +0530

2/2 407-aswp-3500-2023.doc limitation, petitioner may raise the other contentions raised in this petition independently, if the need arise in other matters. (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 →