Zurich Kotak General Insurance Company India Limited 2022 23 v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai
Chaitanya 16-WP-1054-25..docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1054 OF 2025 Digitally signed by CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Date:
2025.03.26 13:08:10 +0530 Zurich Kotak General Insurance Zurich Kotak General Insurance CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Company (India) Limited Company (India) Limited ...
...Petitioner
Petitioner
Versus
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle - 6(3), Mumbai & Ors.
Central Circle - 6(3), Mumbai & Ors.
...
...Respondents
Respondents __________________________________________________________ Mr.
Mr. Madhur Agrawal Madhur Agrawal i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, for the Petitioner.
for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sushma Nagraj, Ms. Sushma Nagraj, for the Respondent.
for the Respondent.
__________________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 25 March 2025 PC.:- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
The impugned notice in this case was issued on 30 March The impugned notice in this case was issued on 30 March 2024. This petition has been filed only in February 2025. The 2024. This petition has been filed only in February 2025. The Petitioner has pressed for interim relief at the fag end of Petitioner has pressed for interim relief at the fag end of assessment getting time barred on 31 March 2025. assessment getting time barred on 31 March 2025. 3.
In similar petitions one of them being Writ Petition (L) In similar petitions one of them being Writ Petition (L) No.6579 of 2025, we have declined interim relief, but posted the 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 matter on 15 April 2025. There is no case made out to take a different view.
different view.
4.
Mr. Agrawal Mr. Agrawal did urge that this is a matter where the did urge that this is a matter where the Petitioner applied for reasons / material which were provided only Petitioner applied for reasons / material which were provided only in January 2025.
in January 2025.
Chaitanya 16-WP-1054-25..docx 5.
We notice that on 23 January 2025, the Petitioner has We notice that on 23 January 2025, the Petitioner has already responded and participated in the re-assessment already responded and participated in the re-assessment proceedings by filing a reply. In that sense, the Petitioner has proceedings by filing a reply. In that sense, the Petitioner has participated in the process. Besides, in the response dated 23 participated in the process. Besides, in the response dated 23 January 2025, the Petitioner has stated that they were in the January 2025, the Petitioner has stated that they were in the process of compiling the balance details for which they seek process of compiling the balance details for which they seek further time as required in the notices.
further time as required in the notices.
6.
The ground based on The ground based on Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs Hexaware Technologies Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.1 was always was always available to the Petitioner, once the impugned notice was issued. available to the Petitioner, once the impugned notice was issued. 7.
The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Petitioner in the case of Anjuna Goa Enterprises vs. The Income Anjuna Goa Enterprises vs. The Income Tax Officer & Ors.
Tax Officer & Ors.2 is not applicable because in the present case, is not applicable because in the present case, the Petitioner has participated in the re-assessment proceedings, the Petitioner has participated in the re-assessment proceedings, submitted various details and sought time for filing further details submitted various details and sought time for filing further details as observed above. Therefore, after having participated, the as observed above. Therefore, after having participated, the Petitioner cannot seek stay of the assessment proceedings today. Petitioner cannot seek stay of the assessment proceedings today. These facts were not present in the case of These facts were not present in the case of Anjuna Goa Enterprises Anjuna Goa Enterprises (supra) (supra).
8.
For the above reasons and consistent with the orders For the above reasons and consistent with the orders made by us in similar matters, we decline interim relief. The made by us in similar matters, we decline interim relief. The assessment can proceed in accordance with law. assessment can proceed in accordance with law. 9.
List the matter on 15 April 2025 alongwith Writ Petition List the matter on 15 April 2025 alongwith Writ Petition (L) No. 6856 of 2025 (L) No. 6856 of 2025.
(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) (2024) 464 ITR 43 2 Writ Petition (L) 4456 of 2025 dated 11 March 2025