EXECEL ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 24(1)(1) AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/5732/2022HC BombayHCBM01018700202209 May 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryQuashed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petitions are covered by its earlier judgment in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were quashed and set aside. The Court further directed that if any re-assessment order, consequential demand notices, or penalty notices were passed, they would also stand quashed and set aside. Any contentions raised in the petitions that were not covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment were expressly kept open to be raised by the petitioners should the need arise. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Excel Enterprises and Dr. K. Shivaram, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents are various Income Tax Officers and the Income Tax Department. The assessment years are not specified. The core of the challenge is the validity of the Section 148 notices. The procedural history involves the filing of these writ petitions seeking to quash the said notices and any consequential orders or demands. Both the petitioners and the respondents' counsel agreed that the present petitions would be covered by a prior judgment of the same High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid and ought to be sustained? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioners argued that these petitions are covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors. Therefore, the Section 148 notices should be quashed. Revenue's contention: The respondents' counsel concurred with the petitioners' submission that the present petitions are covered by the Hexaware Technologies judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP/5732/2022
WP/5761/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1/2 947-1051-aswp-5732-2022+.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (947) WRIT PETITION NO.5732 OF 2022 Excel Enterprises Mumbai …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents WITH (948) WRIT PETITION NO.5761 OF 2022 WITH (1050) WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.14063 OF 2024 WITH (1051) WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.14065 OF 2024 Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rahul Hakani, for Petitioner in WP/5732/2022 & 5761/2022. Ms. Ritika Agarwal, with Ms. Ayesha S. Ansari, i/b. ACE Legal, for Petitioner in WPST/14063/2024 & 14065/2024. Mr. Arjun Gupta, for Respondents-Revenue in WP/5732/2022, WPST/14063/2024 & WPST/14065/2024. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents-Revenue in WP/5761/2022. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 9th May 2024 PC:- 1. We are informed by counsel for petitioners that these Petitions will be covered by the judgment of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1)(2) Mumbai and Ors.1 Counsel for respondents concur. 1 Judgment pronounced on 3rd May 2024 in Writ Petition No.1778 of 2023 Gaikwad RD

2/2 947-1051-aswp-5732-2022+.doc 2. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside. In case any re-assessment order is passed, the same also will stand quashed. So also, consequential demand notices or penalty notices will also stand quashed and set aside. 3. Petitions disposed accordingly. 4. Whichever contention raised in the petitions not covered by the Hexaware Technologies (Supra) is kept open to be raised, should the need arise. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gaikwad RD RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2024.05.13 20:27:08 +0530

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →