HANUMANT GAWADE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/239/2024HC BombayHCBM05000707202420 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. SONAK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVINASH G. GHAROTE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would not be appropriate to entertain the writ petition, as the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal to challenge the order dated 15.03.2023. The Court clarified that all contentions of the petitioner, including those challenging the notices for reopening of assessment, are kept open to be raised in the appeal. Similarly, all objections on behalf of the respondents are also kept open, as the Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the rival contentions. The petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedies available under the Income Tax Act. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court chose not to decide on merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hanumant Gawade, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging an order dated 15.03.2023 passed under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices for reopening of assessment that led to this order. The respondents, the Income Tax Officer and two others, argued that the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act and that the petitioner had failed to respond within the prescribed period despite several opportunities. The petitioner contended that notices were responded to digitally but were not considered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal is available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning an order passed under Section 148-A(b) and notices for reopening of assessment. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that notices were responded to digitally, but these responses were not considered by the revenue. The petitioner sought to challenge the order and the notices themselves. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the Income Tax Act and that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. The revenue also pointed out that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but there was no response within the prescribed period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148-A(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP 239 of 2024 Niti IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.239 OF 2024 HANUMANT GAWADE ... PETITIONER Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND 2 ORS ... RESPONDENTS Ms P. Kamat with Mr C. Dias, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Amira Razaq, Junior Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM:- M. S. SONAK & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ. DATED :- 20th March, 2024 P.C.: Heard Ms P. Kamat, who appears with Ms C. Dias for the petitioner and Ms Amira Razaq, Junior Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has, inter alia, challenged the order dated 15.03.2023 made under Section 148-A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has also challenged the notices for reopening of the assessment, based on which the impugned order dated 15.03.2023 has been made. 3. Ms Razaq points out that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal under the IT Act and, therefore, this Page 1 of 3 20th March, 2024

WP 239 of 2024 Court may not entertain the present petition. Ms Razaq also points out how several opportunities were granted to the petitioner and how there was no response within the prescribed period. 4. Ms Kamat pointed out that notices were responded digitally. However, they were not considered. 5. Be that as it may, without going into any of the controversies raised in this petition, we think that since the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal to challenge the order dated 15.03.2023, it would not be appropriate for us to entertain this petition. However, at the request of Ms Kamat we clarify that all contentions of the petitioner including the contentions raised in this petition regarding the challenge to the very notices seeking to reopen the assessment are kept open to be raised in the appeal that may be so instituted. 6. Similarly, we clarify that all objections on behalf of the respondents are also kept open since we have not adverted to the merits or demerits of the rival contentions. 7. Thus, by relegating the petitioner to avail of alternate statutory remedies available under the IT Act, if they so choose, we dispose of this petition in the above terms. 8. There shall be no order for costs. All concerned to act on an Page 2 of 3 20th March, 2024

WP 239 of 2024 authenticated copy of this order. AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J. M. S. SONAK, J. Page 3 of 3 20th March, 2024 NITI KISHOR HALDANKAR Digitally signed by NITI KISHOR HALDANKAR Date: 2024.03.21 10:41:53 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →