AAKASH INVESTMENTS THR. PARTNER VARUN VIPUL SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12136/2022HC BombayHCBM01038468202201 March 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 Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present writ petitions 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. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, as per the reasoning in the Godrej Industries judgment. It further clarified that the petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on a specific issue of law or fact concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings (particularly regarding limitation or procedural compliance under Sections 148A and 148), subsequent identical petitions should follow that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Zentest Software Private Limited and others, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenged orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other revenue authorities. The specific assessment years are not detailed in the provided text. The core of the challenge appears to be procedural, relating to the issuance of these notices and orders.

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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that their cases were covered by the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. This implies that the petitioners believed the facts and legal principles in their cases were identical to the Godrej Industries case, which likely dealt with issues of limitation or procedural fairness in the re-assessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Revenue) agreed that the issue in the present petitions would be covered by the aforementioned judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 AS 946& Ors.WP-9956-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9956 OF 2022 Zentest Software Private Limited ….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 and Ors.

.…Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.10139, 10931, 11076, 11119, 11222, 11226, 11239, 11283, 11611, 12123, 12136, 12865, 14528, 15497, 15925 OF 2022 WRIT PETITION NOS.1804, 2108, 4822 OF 2023 ---- Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Mr. Devendra Jain (Through VC) a/w. Ms. Radha Halbe, Mrs. Deepa Khare i/b. Mint and Confreres, Ms. Ritika Agarwal a/w. Mr. Sandesh P. Salunkhe and Ms. Ayesha Ansari i/b. Ace Legal, Mr. Riyaz Padvekar a/w. Mr. Tanzil Padvekar and Ms. Tejal Kharkar, Mrs. Deepa Khare i/b. Mint and Confreres, Ms. Rucha Vaidya i/b. Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Ms. Rucha Vaidya i/b. Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, Mr. Dharan Gandhi a/w. Ms. Aanchal Vyas, Mr. Riyaz Padvekar a/w. Mr. Tanzil Padvekar and Ms. Tejal Kharkar, Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w. Ms. Payal Rathod i/b. Mr. Sachin Hande, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Mr. Shashi Bekal, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w. Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b. PDS Legal, Mr. Sukhsagar Syal a/w. Mr. Govind Javeri , Mr. Suyog Bhave a/w. Mr. Yash Prakash and Mr. Vikas Poojary i/b. PDS Legal , Ms. Vidhi Punmiya a/w. Mr. Sanket Bora i/b. SPCM Legal for Petitioners-Assessees in respective matters. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 1st MARCH 2024 P.C. : 1 Counsel for petitioners state that the issue in these petitions 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), Gauri Gaekwad 2024:BHC-AS:10089-DB

2/2 AS 946& Ors.WP-9956-2022.doc Mumbai and Ors.1 Counsel for respondents agree. 2 Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148A(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. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 3 Petitions disposed. 4 Since we have disposed these petitions only on the issue of limitation, petitioners may raise the other contentions raised in these petitions independently, if the need arise in other matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 Judgment pronounced on 28th February 2024 in Writ Petition No.450 of 2023 Gauri Gaekwad Signed by: Gauri A. Gaekwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/03/2024 15:52:32

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →