Nirmala MADAN-2017-18 v. Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)- Mumbai

Bombay HC19 Sept 2024WP/3349/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 notice for Assessment Year 2017-18 on jurisdictional grounds following Hexaware Technologies. Respondents did not dispute the contention. The Court issued rule, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) pending final disposal, and allowed liberty to apply after the Supreme Court decides Hexaware.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; interim orders granted in terms of prayer clause (d) pending final disposal; liberty to apply after Supreme Court decision in Hexaware.

Nirmala MADAN-2017-18 vs Income Tax Officer Int Tax WARD-3(2)(1)… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally KAWRE signed byKAWREKIRAN KIRAN KALYAN KALYAN Date:2024.10.26 10:38:25 +0530

¶2

904-WP-3349-2024.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3349 OF 2024

Nirmala Madan

...Petitioner

Versus

Income Tax Officer, Ward – 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Devendra Jain i/b Radha Halbe for Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.

¶12

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

¶13

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 23 OCTOBER 2024

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

Let reply affidavit to the petition be placed on record within four weeks from today.

¶18

This Petition impugns a notice dated 02 May 2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶19

Mr. Jain, 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

¶20

Page 1 of 2 23 October 2024

¶21

Kiran Kawre

¶22

904-WP-3349-2024.DOC

¶23

Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others¹ .

¶24

Mr. Suresh Kumar, 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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

O R D E R

¶27