LECMEC COMMODITIES BROKING PVT. LTD. THR. DIRECTOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12133/2022HC BombayHCBM01038480202204 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 of Judicature at Bombay quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 23rd May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 25th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notices dated 28th June 2021 & 25th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The court's decision was based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue that the issue was covered by the Bombay High Court's 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. It also noted that the petitioner may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in another matter. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lecmec Commodities Broking Pvt. Ltd., is challenging a notice dated 23rd May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 25th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and notices dated 28th June 2021 and 25th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2014-2015. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue in this petition is 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 respondents' counsel agreed with this submission. The High Court disposed of the petition based on the issue of limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 23rd May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 25th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notices dated 28th June 2021 & 25th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issues raised in the present 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. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel agreed with the petitioner's submission that the matter 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

1/2 564-aswp-12133-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12133 OF 2022 Lecmec Commodities Broking Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w Ms. Payal Rathod i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani 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 23rd May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), impugned order dated 25th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notices dated 28th June 2021 & 25th 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

2/2 564-aswp-12133-2022.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 KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.03.07 11:09:26 +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 →