M/S. BUILT UP vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/14665/2022HC BombayHCBM01044851202204 March 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present petitions is covered by its recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* 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 in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as per the precedent. It was also noted that the petitioners may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if reassessment proceedings are initiated in a manner that is found to be contrary to established legal principles, particularly concerning limitation as per a binding precedent, such proceedings will be invalidated.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, who are assessees, have filed numerous writ petitions challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment years are not explicitly stated for all petitions. The respondents are various Income Tax Officers and the Revenue. The core issue revolves around the validity of these notices and orders, which are a precursor to reassessment proceedings. The procedural history is that these petitions were listed before the Bombay High Court. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the issue in these petitions is 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 respondents agreed with this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are valid, considering the ratio laid down in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.*? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the issue in their petitions is 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.* Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Revenue) agreed with the petitioners' 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

1/3 406-485-oswp-3563-2022+.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3563 OF 2022 Sumedh Rameshchandra Patkar …Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer-22(3)(6) & Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 3583, 3584, 3679, 3688, 3758, 3759, 3817, 3853, 3883, 3941, 3953, 4144, 4285, 4286, 4301, 4307, 4316, 4317, 4497, 4501, 4541, 4546, 4962, 5100, 5221, 5238, 5266 OF 2022; WRIT PETITION (L) NOS.24274, 26507, 26602, 26953, 26982, 27610, 29226, 29557, 39253, 39292, 39296, 39298, 39361 OF 2022; WRIT PETITION NOS.432, 436, 665, 678, 882, 1218, 1339, 1372, 1803, 1922, 1934, 1935, 1944, 1988, 2056, 2298, 2310, 2373, 2398, 2459, 2643, 2812, 3061 OF 2023; WRIT PETITION (L) NOS. 456, 1033, 2202, 2317, 2643, 5213, 5313, 6708, 7400, 7404, 10722, 12508 & 13450 OF 2023. (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO. 11114, 14665 OF 2022 & 7856 OF 2023 Mr Madhur Agrawal, Mr Fenil Bhatt, Mr Jas Sanghavi, Mr Suyog Bhave and Mr Vikas Poojary i/b PDS Legal, Mr Nishant Thakkar, Mr Hiten Thakkar and Mr Bhavesh Bhatia i/b Lumiere Law Partners, Mr Parth Jayant Bhatt i/b One Legal, Mr Pankaj Soni i/b Vaish Associates, Mr Madhur Agrawal i/b Mint and Confreres, Mr Anuj Kisnadwala i/b Mint and Confreres with Mr Abhinav Mathur i/b Mr Uttam S Rane, Mr Harshal Savla i/b Mr Mayur Faria, Mr Rohan Deshpande i/b Ms Farzeen Khambatta, Mr Rahul Hakani, Mr Advait Dalvi and Ms Shreya Gosavi i/b Ms Niyati Mankad Hakani, Ms Ujjwala Chaturvedi i/b Mr Mahaveer Jain, Ms Simoni Chouhan i/b Ms Rashmi Vyas and Mr Madhur Agrawal i/b Ms Priyanka Bora with Mr Mandar Vaidya, Ms Rutuja N Pawar, Mr Jitendra Singh, Ms Radha Halbe, Mr K Gopal, Ms Neha Paranjpe, Mr Om Kandalkar, Mr Akhilesh Deshmukh, Mr Madhur Agrawal, Mr Sameer Dalal, Mr Dhaval Shah, Mr Rahul Hakani, Mr Jay Gaikwad RD 2024:BHC-AS:10787-DB

2/3 406-485-oswp-3563-2022+.doc Bhansali, Mr Paras S Savla, Mr Pratik B Poddar, Mr Harsh R Shah, Ms Akshita Bhandari, Mr Satish Mody, Ms Aasifa Khan, Mr Dharan V Gandhi, Mr Bharat Raichandani, Mr S C Tiwari, Mr Rajendra, Mr Parth Jayant Bhatt, Mr Mohammed Zain Khan and Mr Prateek Jha Mr. Akshay Pawar, i/b. Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, with Mr. Suyog Bhave, Mr. Yash Prakash, Mr. Vikas Poojary, Mr. Harsh Kothari, for Petitioners.Assessees in respective matters. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, Mr Suresh Kumar, Ms Swapna Gokhale, Ms Sushma Nagaraj and Mr Siddharth Chandrashekhar and Ms Sakshi Kapadia, Mr. Ajeet Manwani, for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 4th March 2024 PC:-

1.

Counsel for Petitioners state that the issue in these petitions 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 respective Respondents agree.

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 respective petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 3 Petitions disposed. 1 Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 dtd. 28th February 2024. Gaikwad RD

3/3 406-485-oswp-3563-2022+.doc 4 Since we have disposed these petitions only on the issue of limitation, petitioners may raise the other contentions raised in these petitions independently, if the need arise in other matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gaikwad RD Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/03/2024 12:11:47

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →