RAJEEV BALKISHAN AGARWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/5965/2023HC BombayHCBM01019777202310 May 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all these petitions are quashed and set aside. The Court's reasoning was based on the concurrence of the Revenue's counsel with the petitioners' argument that these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not the National Faceless Assessment Centre, thus violating Section 151A of the Act. This aligns with the precedent set by the same court in *Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.*. Consequently, any re-assessment orders, demand notices, or penalty notices passed pursuant to these invalid Section 148 notices are also quashed and set aside. The petitions were disposed of accordingly. Any contentions not covered by the *Hexaware Technologies Limited* judgment were expressly kept open for the petitioners to raise if needed.

What were the facts?

These are multiple writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court. The petitioners are various individuals and entities, including housing societies, private limited companies, and individuals. The respondents are the Union of India and various Income Tax authorities. The core issue across all petitions pertains to notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners contend that these notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, which they argue is a violation of Section 151A of the Act. The assessment years for these petitions are varied. The petitions challenge the validity of these Section 148 notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, are invalid in light of Section 151A of the Act? This is a question of law. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argue that the notices under Section 148 are invalid because they were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, not the National Faceless Assessment Centre, which contravenes Section 151A of the Act. They rely on the Bombay High Court's decision in *Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.*, which held such notices to be invalid. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the respondents (Revenue) concurs with the petitioners' submission regarding the invalidity of the notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (907) WRIT PETITION NO. 6985 OF 2024 Sharad Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents AND (921) WRIT PETITION NO. 5965 OF 2023 Rajeev Balkishan Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Thane & Anr.

...Respondents ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (923) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12282 OF 2023 Manav Greys Exim Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(1), & Ors.

...Respondents AND (925) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13832 OF 2023 Royal Chains private Limited ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3) & Ors.

...Respondents AND (927) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 20132 OF 2023 Ghansham Doulatram Pahlajani ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Ors.

...Respondents Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.05.15 11:14:47 +0530

2/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc AND (933) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6692 OF 2024 Apex Knives Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(1) & Ors. ...Respondents AND (934) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12068 OF 2024 Meybuen Ventures Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (936) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15833 OF 2024 Satyaraj Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (937) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15836 OF 2024 Geetadevi Vindokumar Bind ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (938) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15837 OF 2024 Ankytrixx and Friend Entertainment LLP ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents Purti Parab

3/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc AND (939) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15872 OF 2024 Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of income Tax Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents AND (940) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15874 OF 2024 Kishor Champalal Solanki ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors.

...Respondents AND (941) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15947 OF 2024 Vinod Jayantilal Shah

...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents ---- WP/6985/2024 Ms. Neha Anchlia for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WP/5965/2023 Mr. Dharan Gandhi i/b Mint & Confreres for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/12282/2023 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. D. B. Deshmukh for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/13832/2023 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b Mr. P. C. Chhotaray for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/20132/2023 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. Purti Parab

4/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc WPL/6692/2024 Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/12068/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale i/b Ms. Radha Halbe for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15833/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Devendra Harnesha for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15836/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15837/2024 Mr. Kumar Kale for Petitioner. Mr. Ravi Rattesar for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15872/2024 Mr. Dinesh Kukreja i/b Mr. Sriram Sridharan for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. WPL/15874/2024 Mr. Naresh Jain a/w Ms. Neha Anchlia for Petitioner. Mr. Devendra Harnesha for Respondents-Revenue. WPL/15947/2024 Mr. Dinesh Kukreja i/b Mr. Sriram Sridharn for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 10th MAY 2024 P.C. :

1.

Counsel for respondents undertake to file vakalatnama within two weeks from today. Undertaking accepted. Purti Parab

5/5 907-WP-6985-2024 & Ors.doc

2.

All these petitions relate to different Assessment Years. We are informed by counsel for petitioners that in these petitions the notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not the National Faceless Assessment Centre and hence, is in violation of Section 151A of the Act. Counsel for petitioners state that as held by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.1, these notices will be invalid. Counsel for respondents concurs.

3.

Therefore, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in these petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment orders are passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside.

4.

Petitions disposed accordingly.

5.

Whichever contention raised in these petitions not covered by Hexaware Technologies Limited (Supra) is kept open to be raised, should the need arise. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 2024 SCC OnLine 1249 Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →