BANSILAL INDRAMAL JAIN HUF vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD OFFICER WADR 28 (1)(1) AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/9574/2023HC BombayHCBM01027228202314 February 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 Tribunal held that the petition is covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the present writ petition were quashed and set aside. The reasoning was based on the agreement between the parties that the case was squarely covered by the precedent. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the order and notices. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bansilal Indramal Jain HUF, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer Ward Officer WADR 28(1) and others. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petition would be covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. The revenue's counsel agreed with this submission. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute were not recorded in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are liable to be quashed and set aside in light of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the present petition is covered by the aforementioned judgment of the High Court, implying that the grounds for challenging the impugned order and notices align with the principles laid down in that precedent. No specific authorities were named by the petitioner other than the cited case. Revenue's contention: The revenue agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petition is covered by the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors., indicating their concurrence with the outcome based on that precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 901-aswp-9574-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9574 OF 2023 Bansilal Indramal Jain HUF …Petitioners Versus Income Tax Officer Ward Officer WADR 28(1) (1) and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Radha Halbe, for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, i/by Ms. Anuradha Mane, for Respondents- Revenue. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 14th February 2024 PC:- 1. Ms. Radha Halbe states that this petition will be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1 Mr. Suresh Kumar agrees. 2. Therefore, impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax act, 19161 (“the Act”) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in these petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Petition disposed. 4. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and 1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom. 146. Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2024.02.15 21:59:11 +0530

2/2 901-aswp-9574-2023.doc set aside. 5. All other rights and contentions which have been raised in the petitions are also kept open. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Shivgan

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →