Disposed

Haresh Gobindram Khabrani v. Income-Tax OFFICER-27(1)(1) , Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Oct 2024WP/14756/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2020-21. Relying on recent Supreme Court observations, the court stayed proceedings pending the Supreme Court's final decision.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted pending Supreme Court decision; liberty to apply granted.

Haresh Gobindram Khabrani vs Income-Tax OFFICER-27(1)(1) , Mumbai… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

909-WP-14756-2024.DOC

¶2

Ashvini Narvade

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 14756 OF 2024

¶5

Haresh Gorbindram Khabrani

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income Tax Officer, , 27(1)(1) & Others

¶8

…Respondents.

¶9

Ms. Rutuja Pawar along with Ms. Hetal Laghave, for the Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta, for the Respondent.

¶10

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 22^nd OCTOBER, 2024

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

2 This Petition impugns a notice dated 31^st March, 2024 for Assessment Year 2020-2021, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶14

3 Ms. Pawar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, considering the principle of law as laid down by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others¹ .

¶15

4 Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would not dispute such contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. He, however, submitted that the view taken by this Court in M/s. J. D. Printer Pvt. Ltd., v/s.

¶16

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶17

Page 1 of 2 22^nd October, 2024

¶18

909-WP-14756-2024.DOC

¶19

Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(2) & Ors.² be followed in the present proceedings.

¶20

5 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that, for the reasons as recorded by us in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra) in regard to our observations on the proceedings involving the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), we need to pass the following order:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22