MAHMODD HASHIM MUSAVI vs. ITO WARD 7(1)PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12076/2024HC BombayHCBM01033563202424 September 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clause (a). The Court noted the Revenue's admission in the reply affidavit that the basis for issuing the reassessment notice was not correct due to verification of materials and that technical glitches had led to inadvertent errors. The Revenue had also requested permission to inform the National Faceless Centre for Reassessment (NFAC) to drop the proceedings as the foundation for reassessment did not exist. Considering these admissions and the fair stand taken by the Revenue, the Court found that the petition was required to be allowed. The petition was disposed of in the above terms, with no costs awarded. The specific issue of whether the notice and order were without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary was implicitly decided in favor of the petitioner based on the Revenue's concessions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahmood Hashim Musavi, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 21, 2024, and an order under Section 148A(1)(d) dated March 30, 2024, along with a notice under Section 148 dated March 30, 2024. These notices and orders were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Pune, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner sought to declare these actions as without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary, and to prevent any reassessment proceedings for the said assessment year. The Revenue, in its reply affidavit, conceded that the basis for issuing the reassessment notice was not correct due to verification of materials and stated that technical glitches led to inadvertent errors. The Revenue further indicated that the proceedings had moved beyond the Assessing Officer's control to the National Faceless Centre for Reassessment and requested permission to inform the NFAC to drop the proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under Section 148A(b) dated March 21, 2024, and the consequential order under Section 148A(1)(d) dated March 30, 2024, and notice under Section 148 dated March 30, 2024, are without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary, thereby liable to be quashed, turning on the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2016-17. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice and order were wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary, and sought to quash them and prevent reassessment for AY 2016-17. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, in its reply affidavit, admitted that the basis for suggesting escapement of income was not correct after verification of materials. It also stated that technical glitches led to inadvertent errors in issuing the notice under Section 148. The Revenue requested permission to inform the National Faceless Centre for Reassessment (NFAC) to drop the proceedings as the foundation for reassessment did not exist.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

91WP12076-24.DOC PVR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12076 OF 2024 Mahmood Hashim Musavi ..Petitioner Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Pune & Ors. ...Respondents ________ Ms. Deepa Khare i/b. Mint & Confreres, for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for the Respondents. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATED: 24 September 2024 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Declare that the impugned notice u/s. 148A(b) 21.03.2024 (Exhibit D) and Order u/s. 148A(1)(d) dt. 30.03.2024 148 dated 30.03.2024 (Exhibit F and G) is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed; (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other approprite writ, order or direction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the impugned notice u/s. 148A(b) 21.03.2024 (Exhibit D) and Order u/s. 148A(1)(d) dt. 30.03.2024 and Notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2024 (Exhibit F and G) as being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to refrain from making any reassessment for AY 2016-17.” Page 1 of 2 24 September, 2024 PRASHANT VILAS RANE Digitally signed by PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2024.09.27 13:31:09 +0530

91WP12076-24.DOC 2. On behalf of the Revenue, a reply affidavit has been filed in which a fair stand has been taken interalia stating that the basis of information suggesting escapement of income was not the correct position in view of verification of the appropriate materials. It was also stated that there were technical glitches in the system and which had led to inadvertent errors in issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also stated that after issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the papers and proceedings are beyond the reach and control of the Assessing Officer as it moves to National Faceless Centre for Reassessment, and hence, the Assessing Officer has requested that he be permitted to inform the NFAC that the reassessment proceedings be dropped as the foundation for reassessment does not exist. 3. Having considered the reply affidavit and admittedly, it appears to be the case of an inadvertent error as fairly pointed out on behalf of the Revenue, the petition would be required to be allowed. 4. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Page 2 of 2 24 September, 2024

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →