Disposed

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev v. Income Tax Officer Ward and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2024WP/3049/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an assessment reopening notice issued under Section 148 by the jurisdictional assessing officer. Relying on the court's earlier decisions in Hexaware Technologies and M/s. J. D. Printer, rule was issued with interim orders staying further proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; interim orders in terms of prayer clause (e); liberty to apply after Supreme Court's decision in Hexaware.

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev vs Income Tax Officer Ward and Anr. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

PRASHANTVILASRANE Digitallysigned byPRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2024.11.2214:39:22+0530

¶2

901WP 3049-24.DOC

¶3

P. V. Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2024

¶7

Rajkumar Kishinchand Sachdev ...Petitioner Vs.

¶8

Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents

¶9

Ms. Ritika Agarwal with Aanchal Koli i/b. ACE Legal, for Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta, for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATE: 18 November 2024.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶13

This Petition impugns a notice dated 31 March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶14

Ms. Agarwal, 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. 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.,

¶16

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶17

Page 1 of 2 18 November 2024

¶18

901WP 3049-24.DOC

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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 test of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Considering our view which we have taken in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra) 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:-

¶22

O R D E R

¶23