KISHOR BHALRAJ SHAH HUF vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/1621/2024HC BombayHCBM01035035202316 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 is covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the said order and notices. The court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kishor Bhalraj Shah HUF, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), and others. Both the petitioner's counsel and the revenue's counsel agreed that the petition would be covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order 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 in light of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present petition is covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed with the petitioner's submission 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

1/2 903-aswp-1621-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2024 Kishor Bhalraj Shah HUF …Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Vipul J. Shah, for Petitioner. Ms. Samiksha Kanani, with Adv. Prasanna Pawar, i/b. Mr. Ajeet Manwani, for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 16th February 2024 PC:- 1. Mr. Shah 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 Ms. Kanani agrees. 2. Therefore, impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in this petition are hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Petition disposed. 4. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 146. Gaikwad RD 2024:BHC-AS:7898

2/2 903-aswp-1621-2024.doc 5. All other rights and contentions which have been raised in the petitions are also kept open. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gaikwad RD Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/02/2024 15:22:26

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →