Disposed

Rohitkumar Sumatilal Shah v. Income tax Officer Ward 26(2)(1)

Bombay HC21 Oct 2024WP/4644/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on jurisdictional grounds. Respondents did not dispute the jurisdictional point but cited J.D. Printer. Court issued rule and interim orders, referencing its prior observations in J.D. Printer regarding Hexaware Technologies and reserved liberty to apply after Supreme Court's decision.

What did the court decide?

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

Rohitkumar Sumatilal Shah vs Income tax Officer Ward 26(2)(1) — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

502-WP-4644-2024.DOC

¶2

Purti Parab

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally PURTI signed byPURTIPRASAD ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PRASAD PARAB PARAB Date:2024.10.26 WRIT PETITION NO. 4644 OF 2024 14:53:05 +0530

¶4

Rohitkumar Sumantilal Shah Vs.

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Shashi A. Bekal for Petitioner. Mr. Ravi Rattesar for Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 25 OCTOBER 2024.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶14

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶15

2 Writ Petition No.12187 of 2024

¶16

Page 1 of 2 25 October 2024

¶17

502-WP-4644-2024.DOC

¶18

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 need to pass the following order:-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20