Arun Mandaviya Huf v. Income Tax Officer,Ward 32(1)(1) And 2 ORS

1/1 932-WP-696-2022.doc PURTI PRASAD PARAB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2022.03.31 16:08:42 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2022 Arun Mandaviya HUF ....Petitioner V/s.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1)(1), Mumbai and Ors.

...Respondents

---- Mr. Subhradeep Banerjee a/w Mr. Deep Shah i/b Mr. Kevin Shah & Associates, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Mr. Arvind Pinto for Respondents.

---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N. R. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 30th MARCH, 2022 P.C. :

1.

In this case the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is dated 28th June, 2021 but the procedure followed is the old procedure which came to be replaced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021.

2.

We have already held in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors. that such notices are bad in law and have to be quashed. Accordingly, notice impugned in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside. 3.

Petition disposed accordingly.

(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1 Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 dated 29th March, 2022. Purti Parab