Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 14(1

- Chitra Sonawane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1812/2022 Anil C. Mistry .. Petitioner.Vs.Income tax Officer, Ward 34(1)(1)Mumbai... Respondent. ..... Miss Akshita Bhandari i/b Mr. Nishit M. Gandhi for petitioner.Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondents. CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & N.R. BORKAR, J.J. P.C. DATED : 11 APRIL, 2022. 1.In this case the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is dated 30.06.2021 but the procedure followed is the old procedure which came to be replaced by theFinance Act, 2021 with effect from 1[st] April 2021.Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1[st] April 2021. 2. Miss Bhandari states that she 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 beingset aside.set aside. 3.We have already held in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors.1 that such notices are bad in law and have to be quashed.Accordingly, notice impugned in this petition is hereby quashedand set aside.Accordingly, notice impugned in this petition is hereby quashedand set aside. 4.Petition disposed accordingly. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) 1Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 dated 29[th] March,2022