PRASAD SURESH YEOLE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALEGAON AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/5976/2023HC BombayHCBM01018303202327 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 22nd April 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned show-cause notice dated 26th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the impugned order dated 19th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court disposed of the petition. The decision was based solely on the issue of limitation, as the matter was covered by the Court's recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The petitioner was permitted 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 on a specific issue, the impugned notices and orders related to that issue should be quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prasad Suresh Yeole, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court concerning Assessment Year 2014-2015. The petition challenged a notice dated 22nd April 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a show-cause notice dated 26th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and an order dated 19th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Malegaon, and others. The matter was mentioned out of turn before the court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice dated 22nd April 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned show-cause notice dated 26th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the impugned order dated 19th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act are valid, considering the principles laid down in the judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 450 of 2023 dated 28th February 2024). Assessee's contention: The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue in this petition would be covered by the recent judgment of the High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the respondents agreed that the issue would be covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 487-aswp-5976-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5976 OF 2023 Prasad Suresh Yeole …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Malegaon & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Tanzil R. Padvekar for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 28th March 2024 PC:-

1.

Mentioned out of turn.

2.

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.

3.

Therefore, impugned notice dated 22nd April 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), impugned show-cause notice dated 26th May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and impugned order dated 19th 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 1. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2023 dated 28th February 2024. Gitalaxmi

2/2 487-aswp-5976-2023.doc set aside.

4.

Petition disposed.

5.

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: 2024.03.30 15:02:12 +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 →