VIJAY RAOSAHEB JAMKAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
WP/5159/2023HC BombayHCBM03014324202323 June 2023Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE Y. G. KHOBRAGADE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty granted to the Petitioner to tender his explanation along with accompanying documents. The Court considered the Petitioner's request in light of recent judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Calcutta High Court. The Petitioner was granted time until 11.07.2023 to submit his explanation. Following this, the Department was directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the law. The Court did not decide on the merits of the escaped income or the Petitioner's liability. The core principle applied is that in cases involving reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148, assessees should be given an opportunity to present their case and explanations, especially when supported by relevant judicial precedents.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Vijay Raosaheb Jamkar, is before the Bombay High Court challenging an action by the Income Tax Department. The Department had noticed a capital gain of Rs. 1,69,03,000/- which it believed had escaped assessment. The Court, on a previous date, noted the Petitioner's evasiveness regarding the sale of an immovable property during the financial year 2016-2017. The Court directed the Petitioner to take a clear stand and place the sale deed on record. In compliance, the Petitioner filed an additional affidavit stating that the Income Tax Department's compliance portal indicates the sale of two immovable properties, with sale proceeds of Rs. 20,97,750/- and Rs. 85,12,000/-. The Petitioner sought permission to raise all grounds and provide an explanation concerning the Department's prima facie view of escaped income, especially after a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to raise all grounds and tender an explanation regarding the Income Tax Department's prima facie view that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, following the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that now that a notice under Section 148 has been issued, he should be permitted to raise all grounds and tender an explanation with regard to the Income Tax Department's prima facie view that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. The Petitioner relied on the judgment dated 14.06.2023 delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.10054/2022 (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 Singhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1), Kolkata and another). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention 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* 912wp5159o23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5159 OF 2023 VIJAY RAOSAHEB JAMKAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Chandak Raviraj R. Advocate for the Respondents : Shri Alok Sharma ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 23rd June, 2023 Per Court :-

1.

On 13.06.2023, we had passed the following order:- “1. Considering the pleadings in the petition, earlier around of litigation before the Court and the conspectus of the matter, we find that the Petitioner is attempting to play "hide & seek". On the one hand, the Petitioner does not want to state as to whether, the immovable property was sold by him during the financial year 2016-2017 for which, he has earned capital gain of Rs.1,69,03,000. On the other hand, the Petitioner is also not willing to make a statement that no such immovable property has been sold by him. The Department has noticed gain of Rs.1,69,03,000. 2. We direct the Petitioner to take a clear stand before us by placing the sale deed on record, on the next date.

3.

Stand over to 19.06.2023 in the passing orders

*2* 912wp5159o23 category.”

2.

Today, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has tendered an additional affidavit to comply with our above order. Besides discussing the judgments delivered by various Courts in the affidavit, it is stated that the compliance portal of the Income Tax Department indicates that two immovable properties have been sold and the Petitioner has received the sale proceeds of Rs.20,97,750/- and Rs.85,12,000/-.

3.

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.

4.

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 (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

*3* 912wp5159o23 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 →