Sankalp Exim v. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai

928WPL-34097-24.DOC P. V. Rane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.34097 OF 2024 Sankalp Exim

...Petitioner

Vs.

Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(4), Mumbai & Ors.

...Respondents

_________ Radha Halbe, for Petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Rattesar, for Respondents.

__________

CORAM:

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

DATE:

18 November 2024.

P.C.

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This Petition impugns a notice dated 20 April 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

3.

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.

4.

Mr. Rattesar, 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 Pvt. Ltd., 1 (2024) 464 ITR 430 18 November 2024

928WPL-34097-24.DOC v/s. Income Tax Officer - 15(10(2) & Ors.2 be followed in the present proceedings.

5.

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

6.

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 our view which we have taken in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra) 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:-

O R D E R

(a) Rule. Respondents waive service.

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, there shall be interim orders in terms of prayer clause (c). (c) Liberty to the parties to apply after appropriate orders are passed by the Supreme Court and/or final decision of the Supreme Court in Hexaware.

(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 2 Writ Petition No.12187 of 2024 18 November 2024