Dismissed

Rajesh Daultram Raheja v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2024WP/16979/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. While jurisdiction under Hexaware Technologies case was raised, the Bench deferred proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in that matter, following its view in M/s. J. D. Printer case.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to parties to apply for appropriate orders after the Supreme Court passes orders in Hexaware Technologies case

Rajesh Daultram Raheja vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

905-WP-16979-2024.DOC

¶2

KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Digitally signed byKAWRE KIRANKALYAN Date: 2024.12.0719:05:35 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 16979 2024

¶6

Rajesh Doulatram Raheja ...Petitioner Vs. Ass. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kalyan & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Rucha Vaidya i/b Ruturaj Gurjar for Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE: 25 NOVEMBER 2024.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

This Petition impugns a notice dated 29 August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, issued by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶12

Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar, 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 .

¶13

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, 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

¶14

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶15

Page 1 of 2 25 November 2024

¶16

905-WP-16979-2024.DOC

¶17

Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Income Tax Officer – 15(10(2) & Ors.² be followed in the present proceedings.

¶18

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

There are other issues which are raised on behalf of the petitioner in assailing the impugned notices / orders apart from the primary issue as raised on the basis of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Considering the view which the Court has taken in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra), we need to follow such orders, which would also govern the present proceedings. Hence, for the reasons as recorded in the orders passed by this Court in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra) and in regard to our observations on the proceedings involving the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), we pass the following order:-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21