RAVINDRA PANDURANG KHANDGE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9 (3) , PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/14664/2022HC BombayHCBM01044857202219 January 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryQuashed and Set Aside

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners would be covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & 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 in all the respective petitions. Furthermore, any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court also explicitly kept open all other rights and contentions raised by the petitioners in their respective petitions, indicating that the decision was based solely on the applicability of the precedent judgment and not on the merits of other arguments.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Zentest Software Private Limited and other assessees, have filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenge orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 and others, is the respondent. The specific assessment years are not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history involves the filing of these writ petitions challenging the aforementioned actions of the Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid and legal. The Assessee's contention, as stated by their counsel, is that all these petitions are covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. This implies that the assessees are arguing that the principles laid down in that judgment render the current notices and orders invalid. The Revenue's contention, as stated by their counsel, is that they agree that all these petitions will be covered by the aforementioned judgment. This indicates the Revenue does not contest the applicability of the New India Assurance judgment to these cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 957-WP-9958-2022 @ Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9958 OF 2022 Zentest Software Private Limited

….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 and Anr. ….Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 10589, 11078, 11215, 12806, 14664 OF 2022, 1109, 1802, 2110, 6477, 7855 OF 2023 ---- Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr.Shashwat Rai i/b Keystone Partners, Mr. Rahul Hakani a/w Mr. Aovait Dalvi a/w Ms. Shreya Gosavi i/b Mr. Niyati Mankad Hakani, Mr. Harsh Shah, Mr. Harsh R. Kothari, Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Mihir Mehta, Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Suyog Bhave, Mr. Mohit Raval and Mr. Yash Prakash i/b PDS Legal, Mr. Sukhsagar Syal i/b Mr. Govind Jhaveri, Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal for Petitioners - Assessees in respective matters Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani, Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma a/w Ms. Shilpa Goal for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters

---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 19th JANUARY 2024 P.C. : 1. Counsel for petitioners state that all these petitions will be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1. Counsel for Respondents agree. Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148 (A)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 Writ Petition No. 1945 of 2023 Dated 15th January 2024 Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.01.22 14:16:25 +0530

2/2 957-WP-9958-2022 @ Ors.doc 2. Petitions disposed. 3. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 4. All other rights and contentions which have been raised in the petitions are also kept open. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →