DEEPALI NITIN NATU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3

PDF · subscribers
WP/2796/2024HC BombayHCBM01009118202405 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 petition is covered by its recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* Both counsels agreed with this position. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 8th April 2021 issued under Section 148A(b), the letter dated 27th May 2022, the order dated 20th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 20th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of on the issue of limitation, and the petitioner was permitted to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent, the court will apply that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepali Nitin Natu, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court concerning Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petition challenged a notice dated 8th April 2021 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a letter dated 27th May 2022, an order dated 20th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and a notice dated 20th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thane, and others. The High Court noted that the issue would be 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.*

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notices and order issued under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid, considering the principles laid down in the judgment of *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* (question of law and mixed fact/law, concerning Sections 148A and 148). Assessee's contention: The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue in the petition is covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this statement. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the respondents agreed that the issue would be covered by the cited judgment. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 973-aswp-2796-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2796 OF 2024 Deepali Nitin Natu …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Thane & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Devendra Jain i/b Ms. Radha Halbe for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 5th March 2024 PC :

1.

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.

2.

Therefore, impugned notice dated 8th April 2021 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide letter dated 27th May 2022, impugned order dated 20th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice also dated 20th July 2022 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.

1.

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

2/2 973-aswp-2796-2024.doc

3.

Petition disposed.

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 arise in other matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.03.06 12:07:31 +0545

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →