Anthony Philip Tundatil vs Income Tax Officer Of Income Tax ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4066 Bom

                                                     1/3                      954-WPL-9953-2022.doc



         Digitally
         signed by         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         PURTI
PURTI
PRASAD
         PRASAD
         PARAB                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PARAB    Date:
         2022.04.20
         15:29:44
         +0530
                                 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9953 OF 2022

    Anthony Phillip Tundatil                                        ....Petitioner
         V/s.
    Income Tax Officer of Income Tax,
    Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai and Ors.                                  ....Respondents

                                      ----
    Mr. Sushil Kumar a/w Mr. Govind Javeri and Ms. Neha Anchlia for
    Petitioner.
    Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
                                       ----

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

DATED : 18th APRIL, 2022

P.C. :

1. On 30th March, 2022 following order came to be passed :

1. Mr. Sushil Kumar for petitioner states that though the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is dated 31st March, 2021, the notice has been digitally signed only some time in April, 2021. He states some time in April because the date is not visible though the month and year is visible. He states the signature has been validated on 12th April, 2021 at 19:02:43. Mr. Sushil Kumar states therefore the notice having been issued after 1st April, 2021, the notice will have to be quashed in view of the judgment pronounced by this court on 29 th March, 2022 in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors.1

2. Mr. Suresh Kumar requests the matter be kept after two weeks to enable him to take instructions.

3. Stand over to 11th April, 2022.

2. Thereafter on 4th April, 2022 following order came to be passed :

    Purti Parab
                                               2/3                    954-WPL-9953-2022.doc

1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board.

2. The counsel for petitioner states that in the order dated 30th March, 2022 the Court has not granted stay of the notice and no further proceedings have been taken following the notice.

3. Therefore, until the next date of hearing the impugned notice is stayed.

3. Mr. Suresh Kumar sought further time. We see no reason why

any further time should be granted because whatever be the date of signing

notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax, 1961, the fact remains that it

has been signed in April, 2021 and the procedure followed is the old

procedure which came to be replaced by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect

from 1st April, 2021.

Mr. Sushil Kumar states that he does not have any instructions

of any assessment order having been communicated to petitioner.

Statement accepted.

Even if the assessment order is passed, still it will be non-est as

the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is being set aside.

4. We have already held in Tata Communications Transformation

Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors. 2

that such notices are bad in law and have to be quashed. Accordingly,

notice impugned in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside.

2. Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 dated 29th March, 2022.

Purti Parab
                                       3/3                954-WPL-9953-2022.doc




5.            Petition disposed accordingly.




(N. R. BORKAR, J.)                             (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Purti Parab