RAHUL SHRAVANKUMAR BAGARIA LHR LATE SHRAVANKUMAR BAGARIA vs. ASSI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/10534/2022HC BombayHCBM01033736202216 January 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue in the present petition was covered by its previous judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The petition was disposed of in terms of this finding. No specific ratio decidendi beyond the application of the precedent was recorded, and no issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rahul Shravankumar Bagaria, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a consequent notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. Both the petitioner's counsel and the revenue's counsel agreed that the issue in the present petition was covered by a prior judgment of the same court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside, in light of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the issue was covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed with the assessee's contention that the issue was 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

1/1 917-aswp-10534-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10534 OF 2022 Rahul Shravankumar Bagaria …Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. …Respondents Ms. Ayesha Ansari, i/b Acelegal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani, a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani, for the Respondent. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 16th January 2024 PC:- 1. Ms. Ansari states that the issue in this petition would be covered by the judgment that was pronounced by this Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1. Mr. Manwani agrees. 2. Therefore, the order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and consequent notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and set aside. 3. Petition disposed. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 Writ Petition NO.1945 of 2023 dtd. 15th January 2024. Gaikwad RD 2024:BHC-AS:2294-DB Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/01/2024 11:48:33

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →