Parul Yogesh Patel vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2 1

PDF · subscribers

WP/14156/2024HC BombayHCBM01047475202414 October 2024Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner should pursue their appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order. The petitioner was permitted to raise contentions regarding the notice and order becoming untenable in light of the High Court's decision in Hexaware. Furthermore, the petitioner was allowed to file an interim application before the appellate authority requesting the disposal of the appeals in view of the Hexaware decision. The appellate authority was directed to expeditiously consider such an application. The Court also ordered that the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon until the proceedings before the appellate forum are decided, keeping all contentions of the parties open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Parul Yogesh Patel, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order and notice from the Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Thane. The petitioner's counsel fairly submitted that an appeal against the impugned order and notice had already been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The High Court noted that in similar circumstances, in the cases of Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey and Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd., it had directed the assessees to pursue their appeals before the appellate authority and to make interim applications for disposal of appeals in light of the Court's decision in Hexaware. The High Court observed that the view taken in those cases would be applicable to the present petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should pursue their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when a writ petition is pending before the High Court. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, conceded that the principles laid down in previous High Court judgments (Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey and Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd.) would apply to their case, implying a willingness to pursue the appellate remedy. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

913-WP-14156-2024.DOC Ashvini Narwade IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14156 OF 2024 Parul Yogesh Patel … Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward- 2(1), Thane & Others …Respondents Mr. Jitendra Singh Advocate a/w. Ms. Shivali S. Mhatre for the Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta, for the Respondents. _______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 14th OCTOBER, 2024 _______________________ P.C. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the impugned order and notice before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 3. In similar circumstances, proceedings had arisen before this Court in the case of Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kalyan & Ors.1 as also in Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1) (1), Mumbai & Ors.2, wherein when an appeal was filed by the assessee therein, this Court had taken a view that it would be appropriate that the 1 Writ Petition No. 11166 of 2024 dated 12 August, 2024. 2 Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors Page 1 of 3 14th October, 2024 913-WP-14156-2024.DOC petitioner/assessee pursue the appeals as also make an interim application before the Appellate Authority praying that the appeals be disposed of in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware. For convenience, we note the operative order passed by this Court in Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

O R D E R i) The petitioner shall pursue its appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), against the impugned assessment order. It is open to the petitioner to raise contentions on the impugned notice and the order having become untenable, in the light of the decision of this Court in Hexaware. ii) We also permit the petitioner to file an application before the appellate authority praying that the appeals be disposed of in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware. If such an interim application is made, certainly the appellate authority shall expeditiously consider the petitioner’s application and all contentions raised thereon. Iii) Until the proceedings before the appellate forum are decided, the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon. iv) All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings are expressly kept open.”

As it is fairly conceded at the bar that the view taken by this Court in Rajan Pradeepkumar Dubey (supra) as also Astra Exim Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would be applicable in the present case, we dispose of this petition in terms of the following order: O R D E R (i) The petitioner shall pursue its appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), against the 14th October, 2024

913-WP-14156-2024.DOC impugned assessment order. It is open to the petitioner to raise contentions on the impugned notice and the order having become untenable, in the light of the decision of this Court in Hexaware. ii) We also permit the petitioner to file an application before the appellate authority praying that the appeal be disposed of in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware. If such an interim application is made, certainly the appellate authority shall expeditiously consider the petitioner’s application and all contentions raised thereon. iii) Until the proceedings before the appellate forum are decided, the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon. iv) All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings are expressly kept open. (FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) 14th October, 2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →