Zurich Kotak General Insurance Company India Limited 2022 23 vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Zurich Kotak General Insurance Company India Limited 2022 23 vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, pressing for interim relief at the fag end of the assessment getting time barred on 31 March 2025, is entitled to a stay of the re-assessment proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

The Petitioner had already responded and participated in the re-assessment proceedings by filing a reply on 23 January 2025, in which it sought further time for compiling the balance details.

Ratio / Principle

Having participated in the re-assessment proceedings, submitted various details and sought time for filing further details, the Petitioner cannot seek stay of the assessment proceedings.

Key takeaways

The decision in Anjuna Goa Enterprises vs. The Income Tax Officer & Ors. is not applicable because the Petitioner here participated in the re-assessment proceedings, submitted details and sought further time; these facts were not present in Anjuna Goa Enterprises.ratio¶18
The ground based on Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. was always available to the Petitioner once the impugned notice was issued.ratio¶17
For the above reasons and consistent with the orders made in similar matters, interim relief is declined and the assessment can proceed in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction - Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2025 (M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.), order dated 25 March 2025. Zurich Kotak General Insurance Company (India) Limited challenged an impugned notice issued on 30 March 2024 in re-assessment proceedings; the petition was filed only in February 2025 and interim relief (stay) was pressed at the fag end of the assessment getting time barred on 31 March 2025. Held: the Petitioner had already responded and participated in the re-assessment proceedings by a reply dated 23 January 2025, in which it also sought further time to compile balance details; therefore, after participating, it cannot seek stay of the assessment proceedings. The decision in Anjuna Goa Enterprises vs. The Income Tax Officer & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) 4456 of 2025, dated 11 March 2025) was held inapplicable, as those facts of non-participation were absent here; the ground based on Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ((2024) 464 ITR 43) was observed to have always been available once the notice was issued. Consistent with earlier orders in similar matters (including Writ Petition (L) No.6579 of 2025), interim relief was declined and the assessment permitted to proceed in accordance with law; the matter was listed on 15 April 2025 alongwith Writ Petition (L) No. 6856 of 2025.

Chaitanya 16-WP-1054-25..docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1054 OF 2025

Digitally signed byCHAITANYA CHAITANYA ASHOK ASHOK JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2025.03.26 13:08:10 +0530

Zurich Kotak General Insurance Company (India) Limited ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle - 6(3), Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sushma Nagraj, for the Respondent.

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 25 March 2025

PC.:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The impugned notice in this case was issued on 30 March 2024. This petition has been filed only in February 2025. The Petitioner has pressed for interim relief at the fag end of assessment getting time barred on 31 March 2025.

In similar petitions one of them being Writ Petition (L) No.6579 of 2025, we have declined interim relief, but posted the matter on 15 April 2025. There is no case made out to take a different view.

Mr. Agrawal did urge that this is a matter where the Petitioner applied for reasons / material which were provided only in January 2025.

Page 1 of 2

Chaitanya 16-WP-1054-25..docx

We notice that on 23 January 2025, the Petitioner has already responded and participated in the re-assessment proceedings by filing a reply. In that sense, the Petitioner has participated in the process. Besides, in the response dated 23 January 2025, the Petitioner has stated that they were in the process of compiling the balance details for which they seek further time as required in the notices.

The ground based on Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.¹ was always available to the Petitioner, once the impugned notice was issued.

The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Anjuna Goa Enterprises vs. The Income Tax Officer & Ors.² is not applicable because in the present case, the Petitioner has participated in the re-assessment proceedings, submitted various details and sought time for filing further details as observed above. Therefore, after having participated, the Petitioner cannot seek stay of the assessment proceedings today. These facts were not present in the case of Anjuna Goa Enterprises (supra) .

For the above reasons and consistent with the orders made by us in similar matters, we decline interim relief. The assessment can proceed in accordance with law.

List the matter on 15 April 2025 alongwith Writ Petition (L) No. 6856 of 2025 .

(Jitendra Jain, J.)

(M. S. Sonak, J.)

2 Writ Petition (L) 4456 of 2025 dated 11 March 2025

1 (2024) 464 ITR 43

Page 2 of 2