LAKEVIEW LAND LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I THANE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7856/2023HC BombayHCBM01024879202304 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 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 in all the respective petitions. The Court also set aside any consequential notices or orders. The High Court stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as per the precedent set in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.*. The Court clarified that the petitioners are at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters, indicating that the decision was limited to the specific issue addressed by the cited precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, who are assessees, have filed numerous writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents are various Income Tax Officers and the Revenue. The core of the challenge appears to relate to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. The judgment does not specify the assessment years or the amounts in dispute. The procedural history is that these petitions were listed before the High Court for hearing.

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 valid, considering the principles of limitation and the procedure prescribed for reassessment proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the issue in these petitions 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.*, implying that the reassessment proceedings initiated against them are likely to be invalid on grounds of limitation or procedural infirmities. Revenue's Contention: Counsel for the respective respondents (Revenue) agreed that the issue in these petitions is covered by the aforementioned judgment, indicating their concession on the point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/3 406-485-oswp-3563-2022+.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3563 OF 2022 Sumedh Rameshchandra Patkar …Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer-22(3)(6) & Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 3583, 3584, 3679, 3688, 3758, 3759, 3817, 3853, 3883, 3941, 3953, 4144, 4285, 4286, 4301, 4307, 4316, 4317, 4497, 4501, 4541, 4546, 4962, 5100, 5221, 5238, 5266 OF 2022; WRIT PETITION (L) NOS.24274, 26507, 26602, 26953, 26982, 27610, 29226, 29557, 39253, 39292, 39296, 39298, 39361 OF 2022; WRIT PETITION NOS.432, 436, 665, 678, 882, 1218, 1339, 1372, 1803, 1922, 1934, 1935, 1944, 1988, 2056, 2298, 2310, 2373, 2398, 2459, 2643, 2812, 3061 OF 2023; WRIT PETITION (L) NOS. 456, 1033, 2202, 2317, 2643, 5213, 5313, 6708, 7400, 7404, 10722, 12508 & 13450 OF 2023. (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO. 11114, 14665 OF 2022 & 7856 OF 2023 Mr Madhur Agrawal, Mr Fenil Bhatt, Mr Jas Sanghavi, Mr Suyog Bhave and Mr Vikas Poojary i/b PDS Legal, Mr Nishant Thakkar, Mr Hiten Thakkar and Mr Bhavesh Bhatia i/b Lumiere Law Partners, Mr Parth Jayant Bhatt i/b One Legal, Mr Pankaj Soni i/b Vaish Associates, Mr Madhur Agrawal i/b Mint and Confreres, Mr Anuj Kisnadwala i/b Mint and Confreres with Mr Abhinav Mathur i/b Mr Uttam S Rane, Mr Harshal Savla i/b Mr Mayur Faria, Mr Rohan Deshpande i/b Ms Farzeen Khambatta, Mr Rahul Hakani, Mr Advait Dalvi and Ms Shreya Gosavi i/b Ms Niyati Mankad Hakani, Ms Ujjwala Chaturvedi i/b Mr Mahaveer Jain, Ms Simoni Chouhan i/b Ms Rashmi Vyas and Mr Madhur Agrawal i/b Ms Priyanka Bora with Mr Mandar Vaidya, Ms Rutuja N Pawar, Mr Jitendra Singh, Ms Radha Halbe, Mr K Gopal, Ms Neha Paranjpe, Mr Om Kandalkar, Mr Akhilesh Deshmukh, Mr Madhur Agrawal, Mr Sameer Dalal, Mr Dhaval Shah, Mr Rahul Hakani, Mr Jay Gaikwad RD 2024:BHC-AS:10831-DB

2/3 406-485-oswp-3563-2022+.doc Bhansali, Mr Paras S Savla, Mr Pratik B Poddar, Mr Harsh R Shah, Ms Akshita Bhandari, Mr Satish Mody, Ms Aasifa Khan, Mr Dharan V Gandhi, Mr Bharat Raichandani, Mr S C Tiwari, Mr Rajendra, Mr Parth Jayant Bhatt, Mr Mohammed Zain Khan and Mr Prateek Jha Mr. Akshay Pawar, i/b. Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, with Mr. Suyog Bhave, Mr. Yash Prakash, Mr. Vikas Poojary, Mr. Harsh Kothari, for Petitioners.Assessees in respective matters. Mr Akhileshwar Sharma, Mr Suresh Kumar, Ms Swapna Gokhale, Ms Sushma Nagaraj and Mr Siddharth Chandrashekhar and Ms Sakshi Kapadia, Mr. Ajeet Manwani, for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 4th March 2024 PC:-

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. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.1 Counsel for respective 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 Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 dtd. 28th February 2024. Gaikwad RD

3/3 406-485-oswp-3563-2022+.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.) Gaikwad RD Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/03/2024 12:57:30

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →