WINDSOR MACHINES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/459/2023HC BombayHCBM01052751202227 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 all the writ petitions would be covered by the recent judgment of the Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if reassessment proceedings are found to be invalid based on a binding precedent concerning limitation or procedural validity, such proceedings should be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Niren Pravinchandra Jain and Windsor Machines Limited, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenged orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were various Income Tax Officers and Deputy Commissioners of Income Tax. The core of the challenge appears to be related to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The procedural history involves the filing of these writ petitions challenging the aforementioned orders and notices.

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 liable to be quashed and set aside? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the issue in these petitions would be covered by a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (2024 SCC Online Bom. 681). Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the respondents agreed that the issue in these petitions would be covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (6 matters)

WP No. 4749/2022
WP No. 314/2023
WP No. 455/2023
WP No. 459/2023
WP No. 2542/2023
WP No. 2135/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1/3 903 to 912-WP-4749-2022 @ Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (903) WRIT PETITION NO. 4749 OF 2022 Niren Pravinchandra Jain ….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai and Ors. .…Respondents ALONGWITH (904) WRIT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (905) WRIT PETITION NO. 455 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (907) WRIT PETITION NO. 2135 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (908) WRIT PETITION NO. 2542 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (909) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6153 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (910) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 8234 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (911) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 12677 OF 2023 ALONGWITH (912) WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9575 OF 2024 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (906) WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2023 Windsor Machines Limited ….Petitioner V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1 and Ors. .…Respondents ---- Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi for Petitioner in WP No. 4749/2022, WP No. 314/2023, WP No. 455/2023, WP No. 459/2023, WP No. 2542/2023, WPL No.8234/2023 and WPL No. 12677/2023. Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal for Petitioner in WP No. 2135/2023 and WPL No. 6153/2023. Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.04.02 10:56:17 +0530

2/3 903 to 912-WP-4749-2022 @ Ors.doc Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar a/w Ms. Hetal Laghave for Petitioner in WPL No. 9575/2024. Ms. Sakshi Kapadia i/b Ms. Sushma Nagaraj for Respondents-Revenue in WP No. 4749/2022, WP No. 455/2023, WPL No.8234/2023. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents in WP No. 314/2023, WP No. 2135/2023. Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Mr. Mayur Sarode, Mr. Vishnu Choudhary and Mr.Nikitesh Kotangle for Respondents in WP No. 459/2023. Ms. Swapna Gokhale for Respondents-Revenue in WP No. 2542/2023. Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar for Respondents-Revenue in WPL/6153/2023. Mr. Devvrat Singh for Respondents-Revenue in WPL No. 12677/2023. Mr. Ravi Rattesar for Respondents-Revenue in WPL No. 9575/2024. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 27th MARCH 2024 P.C. :

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/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.1 Counsel for 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 2024 SCC Online Bom. 681 Purti Parab

3/3 903 to 912-WP-4749-2022 @ Ors.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.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →