LECMEC COMMODITIES BROKING PVT. LTD GTHR. DIRECTOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12134/2022HC BombayHCBM01038461202227 February 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petition was covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices dated 20th May 2022, 28th June 2021, and 18th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions raised in the petition were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is squarely covered by a binding precedent of the High Court, the impugned proceedings should be quashed based on that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lecmec Commodities Broking Private Limited, through its Director Shri. Aashish Niranjan Shah, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 18th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices dated 20th May 2022, 28th June 2021, and 18th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and others. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petition would be covered by a previous judgment of the High Court, a position agreed to by the counsel for the respondents. The High Court was therefore asked to dispose of the petition based on this precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices dated 20th May 2022, 28th June 2021, and 18th 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 petition is covered by the cited precedent and thus the impugned order and notices should be quashed. Revenue's contention: Agrees that the petition is covered by the cited precedent.).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 902-aswp-12134-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12134 OF 2022 Lecmec Commodities Broking Private Limited through its Director Shri. Aashish Niranjan Shah …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w Ms. Payal Rathod & Ms. Tanvi Phatak i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for Respondents. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 27th February 2024 PC:- 1. Mr. Tilak states that this petition will be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1. Mr. Manwani agrees. 2. Therefore, impugned order dated 18th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the notices dated 20th May 2022, 28th June 2021 and 18th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in this petition are hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Petition disposed. 1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 146. Gitalaxmi

2/2 902-aswp-12134-2022.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 petition are also kept open. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.02.28 15:19:34 +0545

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →