RAJAN BABURAO VICHARE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 THANE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4055/2024HC BombayHCBM01002854202426 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, without going into the merits of the petition, accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The Court noted that the Revenue, as an officer of the Court, stated that the Petitioner's grievance was justified. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18th December 2023. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. The Petitioner was directed to respond to the notice dated 2nd August 2023 within two weeks of the order being uploaded. The Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of the show-cause notice on or before 31st May 2024 with a reasoned order, after providing a personal hearing to the Petitioner at least five working days in advance. The Court explicitly clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Rajan Baburao Vichare, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 18th December 2023. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Thane, and others. The Petitioner's grievance pertained to a notice dated 2nd August 2023 issued under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue, through its counsel, acknowledged the Petitioner's grievance as justified without delving into the merits of the petition. The Court was requested to quash the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18th December 2023, passed by the Assessing Officer, is liable to be quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo consideration. The Petitioner's grievance, as stated in the petition, was acknowledged as justified by the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel, Ms. Samiksha Kanani, conceded that the Court may quash the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration. No specific arguments were recorded for the Petitioner, and the Revenue's contention was solely based on fairness and acknowledging the Petitioner's justified grievance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 413-aswp-4055-2024-Modified.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4055 OF 2024 Rajan Baburao Vichare …Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3 Thane And Ors. …Respondents Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, i/by Mr. Tanmay Phadke, for Petitioner. Ms. Samiksha Kanani, for Respondents-Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 26th March, 2024 PC:- 1. Without going into the merits of the Petition, the learned counsel for the Revenue in fairness, as an officer of the Court, states that Petitioner’s grievance raised in the Petition is justified. Ms. Samiksha Kanani states that the Court may, therefore, quash the impugned order dated 18th December 2023 and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer (“AO”) for de-novo consideration. 2. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (a) The impugned order dated 18th December 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. (b) Petitioner shall within two weeks of this order being uploaded, respond to the notice dated 2nd August 2023 issued Shivgan This order is modified pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 6.5.2024 SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.05.07 15:02:51 +0530

2/2 413-aswp-4055-2024-Modified.doc under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (c) The AO shall dispose the show-cause notice on or before 31st May 2024 with a reasoned order. (d) Before passing an order, personal hearing shall be given to Petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated at-least five working days in advance. 3. Petition disposed. 4. We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan This order is modified pursuant to Speaking to Minutes order dated 6.5.2024

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →