AJAY DNYANOBA TINGRE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4402/2022HC BombayHCBM01014228202213 April 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. R. BORKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 8, 2021, is bad in law and has to be quashed. The Court reasoned that the procedure followed was the old procedure, which was replaced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021. The Court relied on its previous decision in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors., where similar notices were held to be bad in law. Consequently, the impugned notice in the present petition was quashed and set aside. The Court also noted that even if an assessment order had been passed, it would be non-est as the notice itself was being set aside. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay D. Tingre, has filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was dated April 8, 2021. The petitioner's counsel stated that no assessment order has been communicated. The Court noted that the procedure followed for the notice was the old procedure, which was replaced by the Finance Act, 2021, effective from April 1, 2021. The Court also noted that even if an assessment order were passed, it would be non-est because the notice itself is being set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 8, 2021, is bad in law and liable to be quashed, considering that the procedure followed was the old procedure which stood replaced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021? Assessee's contention: The notice is bad in law because it was issued under the old procedure after the new procedure had come into effect. The assessee relies on the decision in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors. Revenue's contention: No specific contention is recorded in the judgment for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

951-cwp-4402-22.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2022

Ajay D. Tingre

… Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.

… Respondents ---------------- Mr. Yatin Malvankar i/b Mr. Kapil Hirani for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents. ----------------

CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : APRIL 13, 2022. P.C. 1] In this case the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is dated 08.04.2021 but the procedure followed is the old procedure which came to be replaced by the Finance Act, 2021 with efect from 1st April, 2021. 2] Mr. Malvankar states that he does not have any instructions of any assessment order having been communicated to petitioner. Statement accepted. Even if the assessment order is passed, still it will Dinesh Sherla 1/2 DINESH SADANAND SHERLA DINESH SADANAND SHERLA Date: 2022.04.13 19:05:42 +0500

951-cwp-4402-22.doc be non-est as the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is being set aside. 3] We have already held in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors.1 that such notices are bad in law and have to be quashed. Accordingly, notice impugned in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside. 4] Petition disposed accordingly.

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

1.

Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 dated 29th March, 2022. Dinesh Sherla 2/2

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →