Disposed

Kairavi Agencies Pvt.Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX,6(3)(2) and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2016WP/291/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court heard writ petitions challenging Section 153C notices. The Assessing Officer filed an affidavit recording satisfaction, rendering original petitions infructuous. Court allowed parties to file fresh petitions challenging the merit of the satisfaction note within two weeks, staying notices temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices stayed for two weeks pending filing of fresh petitions if required; original petitions disposed of.

Kairavi Agencies Pvt.Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WPL3215.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3215 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3216 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3218 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3219 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3220 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3221 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3223 OF 2015

¶5

Kairavi Agencies Pvt.Ltd. … Petitioner v/s The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr Madhur Agarwal i/b Mr Atul K. Jasani for Petitioner. Mr A.R. Malhotra with Mr N.A. Kazi for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.

¶8

DATE : 20^th JANUARY, 2016

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

In these Petitions, challenge is to the seven notices all

VRD

1/4

WPL3215.15

dated 10^th March 2015 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) by the Assessing Officer essentially on the ground that the same are without jurisdiction as there was no satisfaction recorded by Assessing Officer that the documents forwarded to him consequent to a search have a bearing on the income of the Petitioner.

¶15

These Petitions had come up for admission on 9^th December 2015 at which time, the Petitions were adjourned at the instance of the Revenue to 14^th January 2016. However, in the meantime, the Respondents were directed not to proceed with the impugned notices dated 10^th March 2015 issued under section 153C of the Act. The Revenue has now filed an affidavit of the Assessing Officer one Mr Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai dated 18^th January 2016 in which it is stated that he has recorded his satisfaction with regard to documents having a bearing on the income of the Petitioner before issuing the impugned notices. The affidavit further states that the satisfaction note has been communicated to the Petitioner on 6^th January 2016. In the above view, the Petitions as filed have now become infructuous.

VRD

2/4

WPL3215.15

However, Mr Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that reading of the satisfaction note itself would establish that the issuance of the impugned notices dated 10^th March 2015 under section 153C of the Act is not justified. However, we are of the view that if the Petitioner has a grievance on the merits of the satisfaction note not being sufficient to issue the impugned notices, then it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to file fresh Petitions pointing out the alleged lacuna in the same within a period of two weeks from today.

¶20

In the meantime, the impugned notices dated 10^th March 2015 are stayed for a period of two weeks from today. This stay is essentially granted so as to exclude the period of limitation for the Assessing Officer to pass an order of assessment consequent to notices issued under Section 153C of the Act and also prohibit the Revenue from proceeding with the notices for a period of two weeks. In the above two weeks if the Petitioner does not challenge the merits of the satisfaction note

¶21

by filing new Petitions and obtaining a stay in those Petitions,

VRD

3/4

WPL3215.15

this stay would expire. However, it is made clear that this stay

¶26

of the impugned notices would expire on 3^rd February 2016.

¶27

All contentions are left open.

¶28

Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.

¶29

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶30

VRD

¶31

4/4

Kairavi Agencies Pvt.Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX,6(3)(2) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kairavi Agencies Pvt.Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX,6(3)(2) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iv, Pune Vs Vidyanand Co.Op. Bank Ltd.

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mumbai Vs Argoma N.V.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Vi, Mumbai Vs M/S Bcc Synthetics Ltd.

Vinod R. Jadhav Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench- I and Ors.

Kairavi Agencies Pvt.Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of INCOME-TAX,6(3)(2) Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Kairavi Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 6(3) (2) Mumbai and 2 Ors.