Dismissed

Rajendra Dadasaheb Pandhare v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2 Pandharpur and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2024WP/15235/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a u/s 148 notice based on lack of jurisdiction as per Hexaware Technologies Ltd. holding. The Court held the earlier M/s. J. D. Printers view must be followed and granted liberty to apply for the Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

Rule made subject to liberty to apply after final decision of Supreme Court on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case.

Rajendra Dadasaheb Pandhare vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally KAWRE signed byKAWREKIRAN KIRAN KALYAN KALYAN Date:2024.10.26 09:58:26 +0530

¶2

903-WP-15235-2024.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 15235 OF 2024

¶6

Rajendra Dadasaheb Pandhare ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-II, Andharpur and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Rutuja Pawar a/w Sneha More for Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Akhilesh Sharma for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 25 OCTOBER 2024

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

This Petition impugns a notice dated 30 August 2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶14

Ms. Rutuja 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

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶16

Page 1 of 2 25 October 2024

¶17

Kiran Kawre

¶18

903-WP-15235-2024.DOC

¶19

Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondent 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. Printers Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(2) & Ors.² be followed in the present proceedings.

¶20

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 pass the following order:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22