GANESH SHANKAR MHATRE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/462/2023HC BombayHCBM01054850202227 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 held that the issue in the petition was covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation. It further clarified that the petitioner could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters, indicating that those issues were not decided in this petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ganesh Shankar Mhatre, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kalyan, and others. Both the petitioner's counsel and the respondents' counsel agreed that the issue in the petition was covered by a recent judgment of the same court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside on the grounds of limitation, as covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the aforementioned High Court judgment, implying the order and notice are invalid. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel agreed that the issue is covered by the same judgment, indicating no opposition to the petitioner's stance on this specific point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 414-WP-462-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 462 OF 2023 Ganesh Shankar Mhatre

….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kalyan and Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Dharan Gandhi for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 27th MARCH 2024 P.C. : 1. Mr. Gandhi states that the issue in this petition will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.1 Mr. Sharma agrees. 2. Therefore, impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 3. Petition disposed. 1 2024 SCC Online Bom. 681 Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.04.02 10:56:15 +0530

2/2 414-WP-462-2023.doc 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 matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →