NARESH MAROTI GURUPAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/7181/2023HC BombayHCBM03017259202305 July 2023Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and in light of the recent judgments cited (Country Liquor Retail Shop vs. Ministry of Finance and others, and Smt.Rachna Singhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1), Kolkata and another), disposed of the Writ Petition. The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to tender his explanation along with accompanying documents. The Petitioner was given time until 19.07.2023 to submit his explanation. The Court noted that thereafter, the Department would proceed strictly in accordance with the law. The specific findings on the merits of the escaped assessment or the grounds of challenge were not decided as the petition was disposed of on a procedural basis.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Naresh Maroti Gurupawar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Department, indicating that income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. The petitioner sought permission to raise all grounds and tender an explanation regarding the department's prima facie view. The respondents are the Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax and another authority. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to raise all grounds and tender an explanation concerning the Income Tax Department's prima facie view that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, in response to a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner, through his learned advocate, submitted that he should be permitted to raise all grounds and tender an explanation with regard to the prima facie view of the Income Tax Department that the income that was assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The Petitioner relied on a recent judgment dated 14.06.2023 by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.10054/2022 (Country Liquor Retail Shop vs. Ministry of Finance and others) and an order dated 12.06.2023 by the Calcutta High Court in WPA No.10215/2023 (Smt.Rachna Singhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1), Kolkata and another). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

*1* 908wp7181o23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7181 OF 2023 NARESH MAROTI GURUPAWAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Deshmukh Sachin S. Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 : Shri Alok M. Sharma ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 05th July, 2023 Per Court :-

1.

On instructions, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that now that the notice has been issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Petitioner be permitted to raise all grounds and tender an explanation with regard to the prima facie view of the Income Tax Department that the income that was assessable to tax, has escaped assessment.

2.

We find that the request of the Petitioner can be considered in view of the recent judgment dated 14.06.2023 delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.10054/2022

*2* 908wp7181o23 (Aurangabad Bench) (Country Liquor Retail Shop vs. Ministry of Finance and others) and the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Calcutta High Court in WPA No.10215/2023 (Smt.Rachna kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →