Gujarat High Court
Dipesh Vallabhai Shah vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Gandhinagar on 9 December, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12821/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12821 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12821 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
DIPESH VALLABHAI SHAH
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 GANDHINAGAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. TUSHAR HEMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR DHAVAL
SHAH(2354) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI D MEHTA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1 Rule. Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Since short question is involved in the present writ petition, the same is taken up for final hearing and disposal today.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 16 20:47:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12821/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2025 undefined 2 The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 19.06.2025 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") and the impugned order of the same date i.e. 19.06.2025 issued under Section 148A(3) of the Act.
3 At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Tushar Hemani appearing with Mr.Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act cannot be continued in wake of the fact that the petitioner company has discontinued its business operation with effect from 05.10.2023. Vide notice of striking off of the Company dated 05.10.2023, issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under Section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, the name of the company is already struck off from the rolls of the Registrar of Companies. It is submitted that thus the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in Gandhinagar who exercises his jurisdiction under the Act in relation to the Company's case for the Assessment Year 2021-2022, cannot continue with the proceedings.
3.1 In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Hemani has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Chetan Chandrakant Kothari vs. Income-tax Officer., [2025] 170 taxmann.com 630 (Gujarat), and also on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jitendra Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 16 20:47:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12821/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2025 undefined Chandralal Navlani vs. Union of India, [2024] 159 taxmann.com 498 (Bombay).
3.2 Thus, it is urged that the impugned notice and the order may be quashed and set aside.
4 Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms.Maithili Mehta appearing for the respondent has, at the outset, submitted on instructions that the striking off the petitioner's company from the rolls of the Registrar of Companies on 05.10.2023 is correct. However, she has submitted that liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondent - Income-tax authority to initiate the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act in case the petitioner company gets revived.
5 In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact that the petitioner company is already discontinued its business operations from 01.10.2023 as the name is struck off from the Rolls of Registrar of Companies vide notice dated 05.10.2023 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under section 248(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with Rule 9 of the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Rules, 2016, the continuation of the present proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the Income-tax authority would be a futile exercise.
5.1 In the case of Chetan Chandrakant Kothari (supra), this Court has examined the aforesaid issued and has held thus:
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 16 20:47:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/12821/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2025 undefined "7. In view of the above averments made on oath by the respondent, more particularly, when it is stated on oath that the petition is found to be in-order that the assessee company has already been 'struck off' before issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, we therefore, quash and set aside the impugned assessment order dated 01.12.2019 passed by the respondent - Assessing Officer under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the penalty proceedings are already stated to be have been dropped, no further order is required to be passed. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Notice is discharged."
6 Under the circumstances, we set aside the impugned notice as well as the order dated 19.06.2025. The writ petition is allowed. However, we reserve liberty in favour of the respondent - Income-tax department to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, if permissible under the law. Rule is made absolute.
In view of disposal of the main petition, connected civil application will not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) BIMAL /16 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 16 20:47:59 IST 2025