Case LawHigh Court › Others v. Ghuge

Others v. Ghuge

High Court 07 Aug 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
Others v. Ghuge
Date of order
07 Aug 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Others v. Ghuge, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

*1*921wp8280o24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 WRIT PETITION NO. 8280 OF 2024 GEETA AMOL TAPADIA LRS OF AMOL RAMKISHAN TAPADIAVERSUSVERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX AND OTHERS ... Shri Chandak Raviraj R., Advocate for the Petitioner.Shri Alok Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents/Department. ... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 07[th] August, 2024 Per Court :- 1.We have heard the learned Advocates for therespective sides. Several issues have been raised in this Petition,inter alia, that the impugned notice could not have been issuedby the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and which couldhave been issued in terms of the provisions of Section 151(A) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Faceless Assessing Officer(FAO). 2. The learned Advocates for the respective sides *2* 921wp8280o24 submit that the judgment dated 03.05.2024, delivered at thePrincipal Seat in WP No.1778/2023 (Hexaware TechnologiesLimited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax andOthers), settles this issue. The notice could not have beenissued, save and except, by the Faceless Assessing Officer. If itis not issued by the FAO, this Court has ruled in HexawareTechnologies (supra), that such notice is unsustainable and,accordingly, the notice was quashed and set aside. 3.It is, thus, obvious that since, the notice is not inaccordance with the scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, the view taken in Hexaware Technologies(supra), would be applicable to this case. 4. In view of the above and considering the conclusions drawn in Hexaware Technologies (supra), the noticeissued u/s 148 would be unsustainable. The same is, therefore,quashed and set aside. If any further demand notice or penaltynotice in furtherance thereof, would also not survive and standsset aside. *3* 921wp8280o24 5.With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. Needless to state, all the contentions of both thesides, save and except, those which are covered by theHexaware Technologies (supra), and which are available to theparties in a proceeding, which can be initiated by the FAO underthe scheme framed u/s 151(A) of the Income Tax Act, are leftopen. kps(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Respond to a penalty notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan