Disposed

Om Sai Developers v. Income Tax Circle Panvel and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2024WP/7704/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an assessment reopening notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Following this Court's orders in J. D. Printer and noting Hexaware Technologies, the Court admitted the petition and granted interim protection pending Supreme Court's decision in Hexaware.

What did the court decide?

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

Om Sai Developers vs Income Tax Circle Panvel and Anr. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

908-WP-7704-2024 (C).DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7704 OF 2024

¶4

Om Sai Developers Versus Income Tax Circle Panvel And Anr

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Ritika Agarwal i/b ACE Legal for the Petitioner. Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶9

Date: 09 DECEMBER 2024.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

This Petition impugns a notice dated 18 March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶13

Ms. Ritika Agarwal 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 .

¶14

Ms. Samiksha Kanani 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

¶15

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶16

Mayur Adane, PA

¶17

908-WP-7704-2024 (C).DOC

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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 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 the said orders, which in our opinion 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 pass the following order:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22