Disposed

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

Bombay HC25 Nov 2024WP/16981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 income tax notice for assessment year 2023-24 on jurisdictional grounds. The Court followed its earlier orders in J. D. Printer and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c), with liberty to apply after the Supreme Court decides Hexaware.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; interim orders in terms of prayer clause (c) pending hearing; liberty to apply after Supreme Court orders in Hexaware.

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

¶1

907-WP-16981-2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 16981 OF 2024

¶5

Rajesh Doulatram Raheja Vs.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kalyan & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 25 NOVEMBER 2024.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

This Petition impugns a notice dated 30 August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year 2023-24, issued by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶14

Mr. Ruturaj H. 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 .

¶15

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

¶16

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶17

Page 1 of 2 25 November 2024

¶18

Kiran Kawre

¶19

907-WP-16981-2024.DOC

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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 need to pass the following order:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24