VINOD SANTOSHKUMAR DHANKANI vs. ASSI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/10888/2022HC BombayHCBM01036448202225 January 2024Bench: 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, by agreement of both the petitioners and the respondents-Revenue, held that all the petitions were covered by the decision in *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.* Consequently, 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 each of the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of petitions are demonstrably covered by a prior High Court judgment, and both parties agree, the impugned notices and orders should be set aside in line with that precedent.

What were the facts?

These six writ petitions (WP Nos. 10888/2022, WP(L) No. 26693/2022, WP No. 848/2023, WP No. 1811/2023, WP(L) No. 2758/2023, and WP(L) No. 10606/2023) were filed by various assessees 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 the Income Tax authorities. The petitions were heard together. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the issuance of notices and orders under the aforementioned sections, which are now under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid and sustainable in law? The petitioners' contention, as stated by their counsel, is that all these petitions are covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.* (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 146). The respondents-Revenue's counsel agreed with this submission. No specific arguments were recorded for either side beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/3 902 to 907-wp-10888-22&ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10888 OF 2022 (902) Vinod Santoshkumar Dhankani

….Petitioner V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 & Anr

....Respondents ----- Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms Samiksha Kanani for Respondents-Revenue. ------ WITH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.26693 OF 2022 (903) Satish Chunilal Mehta

….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(3)(2) & Ors

....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.848 OF 2023 (904) Amit Kapadia

….Petitioner V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 22(1) & Anr

....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2023 (905) Sanjaykumar Ratansingh Rathore

….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1)(1) & Ors

....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2758 OF 2023 (906) Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Pvt Ltd.

….Petitioner V/s. Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.01.29 10:50:59 +0530

2/3 902 to 907-wp-10888-22&ors.doc Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1)(1) & Ors.

....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.10606 OF 2023 (907) Veda Vijay Raheja

….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 32(1) & Ors

....Respondents ---- Mr. Gunjan Kakkad & Mr. Anuj Kishnadwala i/b Mint and Confreres with Mr. Advait Dalvi i/b Ms Niyati Mankad Hakani for Petitioners-Assessees in respective matters. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma with Ms Sakshi Kapadia i/b Ms Sushma Nagaraj, Mr. Vaibhav Date i/b Ms Swapna Gokhale and Mr. Subir Kumar with Ms. Sruti Kalyanikar for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 25th JANUARY 2024 P.C. : 1 Counsel for petitioners state that all these petitions will be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1. Counsel for respondents agree. 2 Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148 (A)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. 3 Petitions disposed. 1. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 146 Meera Jadhav

3/3 902 to 907-wp-10888-22&ors.doc 4 Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 5 All other rights and contentions which have been raised in the petitions are also kept open. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →