SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI THROUGH PRIN CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/2531/2023HC BombayHCBM01009447202305 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 High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 11th June 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court disposed of the petition, stating that it was disposed of only on the issue of limitation. The Court further clarified that the petitioner may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is covered by a binding precedent of the High Court, the impugned actions based on that issue should be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat, filed a writ petition challenging notices and an order related to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The impugned actions included a notice dated 11th June 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and a notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi, and others. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue in the petition would be covered by a recent judgment of the High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. 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 notice dated 11th June 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act are valid and sustainable in law, considering the issue is covered by the High Court's judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issues raised in the writ petition are squarely covered by the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 450 of 2023, dated 28th February 2024). Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed that the issue would be 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

1/2 978-aswp-2531-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2531 OF 2023 Mr. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat …Petitioner Versus The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi & Ors. …Respondents Ms. Vidhi Punmiya i/b Mr. Sanket Bora for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 5th March 2024 PC : 1. Counsel for Petitioner states that this petition relates to Assessment Year 2014-2015. The issue in this petition will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.1. Counsel for Respondents agrees. 2. Therefore, impugned notice dated 11th June 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), impugned order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice also dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act in the petition are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 1. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2023 dated 28th February 2024. Gitalaxmi

2/2 978-aswp-2531-2023.doc 3. Petition disposed. 4. Since we have disposed this petition only on the issue of limitation, Petitioner may raise the other contentions raised in this petition independently, if the need arise in other matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.03.06 12:08:41 +0545

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →