KAMLESH VASHDEV ROHRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/9029/2023HC BombayHCBM01025798202304 October 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the order dated March 29, 2023, passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice dated March 29, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that these actions were taken without hearing or considering the petitioner's case. The petitioner was directed to reply to the notice dated March 8, 2023, issued under Section 148A(b) within three weeks. The notice under Section 148A(b) would be disposed of after giving the petitioner a personal hearing, with at least five working days' advance notice. All rights and contentions of the petitioner were kept open, and the Court explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the matter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kamlesh Vashdev Rohra, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 8, 2023, an order passed under Section 148A(d) dated March 29, 2023, and a subsequent notice under Section 148 dated March 29, 2023. The petitioner contended that the reopening was based on the erroneous assumption that they did not possess a PAN number and had unexplained credits, whereas they possess a PAN and have filed returns regularly, including for Assessment Year 2016-17. The revenue argued that their information indicated the petitioner was without a PAN and had not responded to notices, though the petitioner claimed notices were sent to an old address.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside, considering the petitioner's claim of possessing a PAN and having filed returns, and the alleged incorrect address used for communication. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the entire basis for reopening was flawed as they possess a PAN and have been filing returns regularly. The notices were sent to an old address, not their current one mentioned in subsequent returns. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that their information suggested the petitioner was without a PAN and had not responded to notices. They stated that notices sent were not replied to.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/3 14-WP-9029-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9029 OF 2023 Kamlesh Vashdev Rohra

….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2) and Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi a/w Ms. Aanchal Vyas for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 4th OCTOBER 2023 P.C. : 1. Prayer clause – (a) of the petition reads as under : (a) that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the notice show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 08.03.2023 (“Exhibit L”), the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act (“Exhibit M”) and the subsequent notice dated 29.03.2023 (“Exhibit N”) issued under section 148 of the Act. 2. It is petitioner’s case that the entire basis for reopening the assessment is by treating petitioner as a person without PAN Number and in whose accounts substantial amounts have been credited. It is petitioner’s case that petitioner possesses PAN Number and has been filing returns regularly including for the Assessment Year 2016-17 for which the notice for reopening has been issued alleging escapement of income. Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2023.10.07 10:38:04 +0530

2/3 14-WP-9029-2023.doc 3. It is respondent’s case that the information they had received was petitioner was a person without PAN number and notices sent to petitioner was not even replied. Mr. Gandhi states that the address to which the notices were sent was old address of petitioner and not the current address which is mentioned in the returns filed by petitioner for subsequent years. 4. We do not wish to go into all those details in the petition. Since the order under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has been passed and consequently notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued without hearing or considering petitioner’s case, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 29th March 2023 passed under Section 148 A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice also dated 29th March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. Petitioner shall reply to the notice dated 8th March 2023 issued under Section 148 A(b) of the Act within three weeks. 6. The notice under section 148 A(b) of the Act will be disposed after giving personal hearing to petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated at least five working days in advance. 7. All rights and contentions of petitioner are kept open. Purti Parab

3/3 14-WP-9029-2023.doc 8. Petition disposed. 9. We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. (NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →