PRABHAKAR SHANKARAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 SOLAPUR AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/11209/2022HC BombayHCBM01035343202205 March 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryQuashed and Set Aside

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated May 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned order dated July 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The decision was based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue that the issue was covered by the High Court's recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and the petitioner was granted liberty 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 of the same court, the impugned proceedings should be decided in line with that precedent, particularly when both parties agree.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prabhakar Shankaran, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice dated May 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an order dated July 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2014-2015. The revenue department was represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Solapur, and others. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue in the petition would be covered by a recent judgment of the High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The counsel for the respondents agreed with this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated May 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned order dated July 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, are valid and sustainable in law, considering the principles laid down in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issues raised in the present writ petition are covered by the 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., which likely pertains to the validity of reassessment proceedings or related procedural aspects. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed that the issue in the petition would be covered by the aforementioned judgment, implying their acceptance of its applicability and potential impact on the present case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 975-aswp-11209-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11209 OF 2022 Prabhakar Shankaran …Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Solapur & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar i/b Mr. Ruturaj H. Gurjar 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 29th May 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and impugned order also dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) 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.

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

2/2 975-aswp-11209-2022.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 arise in other matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.03.06 12:07:58 +0545

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →