Disposed

The B N Gamadia Parsee Hunnarshala Trust v. Income tax Officer Exemption Ward 2 4

Bombay HC23 Sept 2024WP/4322/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay recorded petitioner's contentions regarding lack of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under Section 148 and considering incomplete records. Court directed issue of notice quashed in interim but allowed final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Notice provided under Section 148 quashed in interim; final hearing allowed; reply affidavit due in three weeks.

The B N Gamadia Parsee Hunnarshala Trust vs Income tax Officer… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

914-OSWP-4322-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4322 OF 2024

¶5

The B N Gamadia Parsee Hunnarshala Trust …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Income-tax Officer (Exemption) Ward 2(4), Mumbai & Ors …Respondents

¶8

Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate, a/w B.V. Jhaveri, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2024

¶11

PC :

¶12

We have heard Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. Mr. Sharma seeks an adjournment to file reply affidavit. Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel has fairly stated that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“ the Act ”) as also the prior proceedings under Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“ JAO ”) who had no jurisdiction. Considering the law as laid down by this Court in the case of Hexaware

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHWINI ASHWINI JANARDAN JANARDAN VALLAKATI VALLAKATI Date: 2024.09.25 12:11:09 +0530

¶14

Page 1 of 3 September 23, 2024

¶15

Ashwini Vallakati

¶16

914-OSWP-4322-2024.doc

¶17

Technologies Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 4

¶18

Ors.¹ ( “Hexaware” ). In addition to such contention Mr. Mistri would also submit that the approach of the JAO in passing the order under Section 148A(d) is also wholly incorrect and improper as he has not taken into consideration the materials already submitted by the petitioner-assessee which were in compliance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It is also a submission that the prescribed form setting out the objects of the Trust was furnished, which has been completely overlooked while issuing the impugned notice.

¶19

In this view of the matter, considering the position in law as laid down by this Court in J.D. Printers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(2) & Ors.2 we are of the opinion that the petition would deserve final hearing.

¶20

We may also observe that considering the similar issue is involved we have passed similar orders in M/s. Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1) 3 & Ors .

¶21