ANIL VASANT PISAL vs. ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue in the present petitions is covered by its prior reasoned orders in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi and Panacea Unique Star Developers. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions with specific directions. The Revenue was directed to act in furtherance of the declarations made by the petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, read with the IDS Rules, and to issue Form 4 under the IDS within four weeks from the date of the order. This was to be done after giving credit for all amounts paid, including advance tax and self-assessment tax. Furthermore, the Court quashed and set aside the assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices that were passed in conjunction with these declarations. The ratio decidendi is that the principles laid down in the earlier judgments concerning the IDS declarations are to be applied to subsequent similar cases.
What were the facts?
This judgment concerns multiple writ petitions filed by various assessees, including M/s. Shri Anand Venkateshwar Associates, Anil Vasant Pisal, Aakash Erectors Private Limited, and Madhukar Balwant Waghmare, against the Union of India and income tax authorities. The petitions challenge actions taken by the revenue in relation to declarations made by the petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS). The procedural history involves the filing of these writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The revenue, represented by different counsel, appeared in these matters.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the respondents (Revenue) are to act in furtherance of the declarations made by the petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) and issue Form 4 under the IDS, giving credit for all amounts paid, including advance tax and self-assessment tax. 2. Whether the assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices issued consequent to the IDS declarations are to be quashed and set aside. The petitioners argued that the issue in these petitions is covered by two reasoned orders previously passed by the High Court in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune and Ors. and Panacea Unique Star Developers v. Union of India. The respondents-Revenue concurred with this submission.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Income Declaration Scheme, 2016
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
1/3 909-aswp-11894-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11894 OF 2022 M/s. Shri Anand Venkateshwar Associates …Petitioner Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance Dept. and Anr. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2023 Anil Vasant Pisal …Petitioner Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistan Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer and Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5822 OF 2023 Aakash Erectors Private Limited Through its Director, Sanjay Chandanmal Jain …Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1), Pune …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4903 OF 2024 Madhukar Balwant Waghmare ...Petititioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sanket Bora, with Vidhi Punmiya, i/by SPCM Legal, for Petitioners in WP 11894/2022 and WP 5822/2023. Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sham Walve, Sanket Bora and Vidhi Punmiya i/by SPCM Legal for Petitioner in WP 4903/2024. Mr. Sham Walve, with Mr. Siddharth Wakankar, for Petitioner in WP 1367/2023. Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Respondents-Revenue in WP Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.04.04 15:18:56 +0530
2/3 909-aswp-11894-2022.doc 1367/2023 and WP 4903/2024. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue in WP 11894/2022 and WP 5822/2023. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 3rd April, 2024 PC:- 1. At the outset, Mr. Khanchandani undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondents-Revenue in Writ Petition No.1367 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.4903 of 2024 in place of Mr. Manwani. Undertaking accepted. Registry to take the vakalatnama on file. 2. Mr. Jetley, Mr. Sham Walve and Mr. Sanket Bora state that the issue in these Petitions is covered by two reasoned orders passed by this Court in Rajendra Lilachand Sanghavi v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune and Ors.1 and in Panacea Unique Star Developers v. Union of India2. Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Khanchandani appearing for the Respondents-Revenue concur. 3. Therefore, Petitions are disposed with the following directions: (a) Respondents to act in furtherance of the declaration made by Petitioners under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (“IDS”) read with IDS Rules and issue Form 4 under the IDS within four weeks from today after giving credit to all 1 Writ Petition No.5134 of 2022 dtd. 7th March 2024. 2 Writ Petition No.7026 of 2023 dtd. 11th March 2024. Shivgan
3/3 909-aswp-11894-2022.doc amounts paid including the advance tax and self assessment tax, as the case may be. (b) Consequently, the assessment orders passed together with the demand notice and penalty notice issued are also quashed and set aside. 4. Petitions disposed.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
