MANISH RASIKLAL SATRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(2)(1) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/3412/2023HC BombayHCBM01012780202305 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 was covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders 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. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The court explicitly stated that all other rights and contentions raised in the petition were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent, the authorities should follow it, and the court will grant relief accordingly. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned orders and notices.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Rasiklal Satra, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) and others. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petition was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. The revenue's counsel agreed with this submission. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Assessee's contention: The petition is covered by the aforementioned judgment, implying the impugned orders and notices are invalid. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel agreed that the petition is covered by the cited judgment, indicating no opposition to the assessee's submission on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 411-WPL-3412-23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3412 OF 2023 Manish Rasiklal Satra ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) & Ors ...Respondents ---- Mr Dharan V Gandhi a/w Ms Aanchal Vyas for Petitioner. Mr Arjun Gupta for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 5th FEBRUARY 2024 P.C. : 1 Counsel for petitioner states that this petition will be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1. Counsel for respondents agree. 2 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. 3 Petition disposed. 4 Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 1. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 146 Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Digitally signed by MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2024.02.07 14:14:56 +0530

2/2 411-WPL-3412-23.doc 5 All other rights and contentions which have been raised in the petition are also kept open. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →