Mahendra Punjarao Kalyankar v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

Bombay HC18 Nov 2024WP/4967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Court, relying on the decision in M/s. J. D. Printer Pvt. Ltd. and clarifying the observation in Hexaware Technologies Limited, reserved its final judgment pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hexaware. Pending orders were granted.

What did the court decide?

Pending hearing and final disposal, interim orders in terms of prayer clause (d) were granted. Liberty to apply for final decision after Supreme Court ruling in Hexaware.

Mahendra Punjarao Kalyankar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

PRASHANTVILASRANE Digitallysigned byPRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2024.11.2214:39:24+0530

¶2

915 WPL-33732-24.DOC

¶3

P. V. Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.33732 OF 2024

¶7

Mahendra Punjarao Kalyankar

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(4) Mumbai & Ors.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Mr. Devendra Jain and Shashank Mehta i/b. Radha Halbe, for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Mr. Suresh Kumar, 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

¶19

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶20

Page 1 of 2 18 November 2024

¶21

915 WPL-33732-24.DOC

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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 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:-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26