SAINATH SHANKAR MHATRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/593/2023HC BombayHCBM01054841202203 April 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 Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential notices or orders. The court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that the issue was covered by the recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The judgment explicitly states that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation. The court also noted that the petitioner may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters, indicating that the merits of other potential issues were not decided in this writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sainath Shankar Mhatre, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2) and others. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue in the petition was 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 revenue agreed with this submission. The court noted that the petition was disposed of solely on the issue of limitation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside. Assessee's Contention: The issue in the petition 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 revenue's counsel agreed 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

1/2 902-aswp-593-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.593 OF 2023 Sainath Shankar Mhatre …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2) & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Dharan Gandhi, for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 3rd April, 2024 PC:-

1.

Mr. Sharma undertakes to file vakalatnama.

2.

Counsel for Petitioner state that the issue in the 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.

3.

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 petition are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 4 Petition disposed. 1 Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 dtd. 28th February 2024. Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.04.04 15:18:54 +0530

2/2 902-aswp-593-2023.doc 5 Since we have disposed the petition only on the issue of limitation, petitioner may raise the other contentions raised in the petition independently, if the need arise in other matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →