PRUDENT CONWELL PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/3820/2022HC BombayHCBM01043934202104 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 12, 2021, was bad in law and liable to be quashed. The reasoning was that the notice was issued following the old procedure, which had been superseded by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021. The Court relied on its prior decision in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors., where a similar notice was held to be invalid. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The Court accepted the statement that no assessment order had been communicated to the petitioner, and even if one were passed, it would be non-est due to the invalidity of the notice. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prudent Conwell Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice was dated April 12, 2021. The petitioner argued that the procedure followed for issuing this notice was the old procedure, which had been replaced by the Finance Act, 2021, effective from April 1, 2021. The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, did not provide any instructions regarding an assessment order being communicated to the petitioner. The Court noted that even if an assessment order was passed, it would be invalid as the Section 148 notice itself was being set aside.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated April 12, 2021, is invalid if it follows the old procedure which was replaced by the Finance Act, 2021, effective from April 1, 2021? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was bad in law because it was issued under the old procedure after the new procedure, mandated by the Finance Act, 2021, had come into effect. The petitioner relied on the High Court's own decision in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 917.WP-3820-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3820 OF 2022 Prudent Conwell Private Limited

….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(1) & Ors.

….Respondents ---- Ms. Dishya Pandey i/b. Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava for petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 4th APRIL 2022 P.C.: 1 In this case the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is dated 12th April 2021 but the procedure followed is the old procedure which came to be replaced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021. 2 Ms. Pandey states that she 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 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

1.

Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 dated 29th March, 2022. Gauri Gaekwad GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2022.04.06 11:22:47 +0530

2/2 917.WP-3820-2022.doc impugned in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside. 4 Petition disposed accordingly. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gauri Gaekwad

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →