RAHUL SHARAD MISHRIKOTKAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4486/2024HC BombayHCBM03017042202402 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Writ Petition had become infructuous. This decision was based on the communication received by the petitioner from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department, dated June 24, 2024. This communication explicitly stated that the proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the concerned Assessment Year had been dropped. Consequently, the Court, on the request of the petitioner, disposed of the Writ Petition as being infructuous. No specific finding on the merits of the original Section 148 proceedings was made, as the matter was resolved by the department's subsequent action. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rahul Sharad Mishrikotkar, filed a Writ Petition No. 4486 of 2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The petition challenged proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner Income Tax and others. On July 2, 2024, the petitioner's advocate presented a communication dated June 24, 2024, from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Circle-1, Aurangabad. This communication indicated that the proceedings under Section 148 for the concerned Assessment Year had been dropped.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition has become infructuous in light of the communication from the Income Tax Department dropping the proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that since the proceedings under Section 148 have been dropped by the Income Tax Department, the Writ Petition is rendered infructuous and should be disposed of accordingly. The petitioner relied on the communication received from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue. However, the communication from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was presented by the petitioner, effectively mooted the proceedings that the revenue had initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

4486.24wp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

901 WRIT PETITION NO. 4486 OF 2024 RAHUL SHARAD MISHRIKOTKAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND OTHERS …. Mr R. R. Chandak, Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for Respondents

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 2nd July, 2024 PER COURT: 1. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner tenders across the bar, a communication received by the Petitioner from the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Circle-1, Aurangabad, dated 24/06/2024, indicating that the proceeding initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been dropped for the concerned Assessment Year. The said copy of the communication is marked as ‘X’ for identification. 2024:BHC-AUG:13095-DB

4486.24wp (2) 2. In view of the above and on the request of the Petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed off, as being infructuous. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →