AASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH vs. ASSI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/12139/2022HC BombayHCBM01038485202206 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 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 impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It further clarified that the petitioners could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, the impugned orders and notices should be quashed on that ground.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Lecmec Engineering Pvt Ltd. and Ashish Shah, along with Aashish Niranjan Shah, filed writ petitions challenging 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, Circle-7, Pune, and others. The petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the issue in these petitions 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. The counsel for the respondents agreed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside on the grounds covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Assessee's contention: The issue in the present petitions is 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. Revenue's contention: The counsel for the respondents agreed that the issue is 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

1/2 908-wp-12137-22&ANR.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12137 OF 2022 Lecmec Engineering Pvt Ltd., the Director Ashish Shah ….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune & Ors

.…Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.12139 OF 2022 Aashish Niranjan Shah ...Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors ...Respondents

---- Mr. Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w Ms Payal Rathod i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner. Ms Samiksha Kanani for Respondent-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 6th 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), 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. 1 2024 Scc online Bom 681 Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.03.07 11:26:41 +0530

2/2 908-wp-12137-22&ANR.doc 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.) 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 →