Remanded

Kishore Mirchandani v. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Bombay HC5 Jan 2022WP/3614/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order dated November 30, 2019, rejecting the petitioner's objections to income-tax proceedings. The court directed the authority to reconsider the matter, considering a statement filed by the petitioner citing an amendment to Section 9 of the Income Tax Act and a decision by the Karnataka High Court, ruling within eight weeks. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30th November, 2019 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to submit their submissions to the concerned authority along with a copy of the High Court of Karnataka's orde

Kishore Mirchandani Vs Income Tax Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

422-WP-3614-2019.doc

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

PURTI PRASAD PARAB

¶4

Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2022.01.11 17:21:31 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3614 OF 2019

¶7

Kishore Mirchandani….Petitioner

¶8

 V/s.

¶9

Income Tax Officer International
Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai…Respondent

¶10

----

¶11

Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ashish Sodhani and Mr.Afaan
Arshad i/b Nishith Desai Associates for Petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for Respondents-Revenue.

¶12

 ----

¶13

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
 R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
 DATED : 5th JANUARY, 2022

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1.Mr. Pardiwalla states that the basis of initiation of proceedings
under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) now no longer
survives in the light of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 whereby
amendments have been effected to Section 9 of the Act and in particular to
explanation 5. Mr. Pardiwalla further submitted that by virtue of the
Amendment Act, it is clarified that nothing in explanation 5 shall apply to
the proceedings inter alia Section 147 and the notice is one without
jurisdiction and consequently, proceedings pursuant thereto are required to
be set aside. Mr. Pardiwalla further submitted that there were identical
matters before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru where a
bunch of 8 or 9 petitions were disposed because respondents had filed a
memo as under :

¶16

“The petitioner in the above matter has challenged the reopening

¶17

Purti Parab

¶18

422-WP-3614-2019.doc

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

of assessment under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year
2012-13. During the course of hearing the assessee contended that in
view of Amendment to Section 9 of the Act by Taxation Laws
(Amendment) Act 2021 dated 30/08/2021, the transaction being
prior to 28/05/2012, the reopening of assessment is not sustainable.
The contention of the assessee has been examined and the said
contention is correct.

¶21

Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice and
equity.”

¶22

2.Mr. Chhotaray states that this court can quash the impugned
order dated 30th March, 2019 by which petitioner’s objections were rejected
and direct the concerned authority to consider Mr. Pardiwalla’s statement as
recorded above along with the objections already filed and pass such orders
as deemed fit.

¶23

3. Mr. Pardiwalla states that it is not an unfair suggestion.

¶24

4.Therefore, the order dated 30th November, 2019 impugned in
this petition is quashed and set aside.

¶25

5.Petitioner to place before the concerned authority their submissions
alongwith copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru and the concerned authority shall consider the same and pass
appropriate orders within 8 weeks from the date this order is uploaded. If
petitioner requests, the concerned authority shall also give personal hearing to
petitioner and date for personal hearing shall be communicated seven days in
advance.

¶26

Purti Parab

¶27

422-WP-3614-2019.doc

¶28

3 / 3

¶29

6. Petition disposed.

¶30

(R.N. LADDHA, J.)

¶31

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶32

Purti Parab

Kishore Mirchandani v. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Mirchandani v. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Diwakar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1)(1) Mumbai and Anr.

Diwakar Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1)(1) Mumbai and Anr.

A. P. Properties Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre and 2 Ors.

Shree Ambica Gems Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 19(3) and 3 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -v, Pune Vs Semco Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-5 Vs Chandan Stores