MAHARAJKRISHNA BIRMANI vs. THE ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/1094/2023HC BombayHCBM01037203202222 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryQuashed and Set Aside

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue in the petition was covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (2024 SCC Online Bom. 681). Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. All consequential assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioner could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a subsequent judgment of the same court covers the issue, the impugned proceedings should be decided in accordance with that precedent, particularly concerning procedural aspects like limitation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Maharajkrishna Birmani, 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 notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents are the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik, and others. The petition also sought to quash consequential assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices. The Revenue was represented by Mr. Suresh Kumar. The High Court noted that the issue in the petition would be covered by a recent judgment of the same court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (2024 SCC Online Bom. 681). Contentions: Assessee: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and notice, and consequential demands, relying on the High Court's recent judgment which presumably dealt with issues of limitation or procedural validity concerning such notices and orders. Revenue: The Revenue, through its counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar, acknowledged that the issue in the petition would be 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

1/2 451-WP-1094-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1094 OF 2023 Maharajkrishna Birmani

….Petitioner V/s. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik and Ors.

…Respondents ---- Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 23rd APRIL 2024 P.C. : 1. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that the issue in this petition 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 2. Therefore, impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential assessment orders, demand notices and penalty notices, etc. are also quashed and set aside. 3. Petition disposed. 1 2024 SCC Online Bom. 681 Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.04.24 18:09:58 +0530

2/2 451-WP-1094-2023.doc 4. Since we have disposed this petition only on the issue of limitation, petitioner may raise the other contentions raised in this petition independently, if the need arise in other matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →