Vassudeva Dempo Family Privatetrust Thr. Attorney Sharmilasandeep Prabhu v. The Deputy Comissioner Of Income… Respondentstax And 2 Ors

Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOAWRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2022 VASSUDEVA DEMPO FAMILY PRIVATETRUST THR. ATTORNEY SHARMILASANDEEP PRABHU ...Petitioner Versus THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME… RespondentsTAX AND 2 ORS Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar with Ms. Pooja Naik and Mr. Rohan Deshpande,Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department forRespondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. Karpe, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3. CORAM:M. S. SONAK & BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 6[th] FEBRUARY,2023. P.C.: 1.Heard Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar who appears along with Ms. PoojaNaik and Mr. Rohan Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Amira Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Karpe, learned Standing Counsel forRespondent No.3. 2.The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14/10/2022made by the Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Circle-1 Panaji rejectingthe petitioner's application seeking immunity. 3.In the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner, it issubmitted that though an appeal might not lie against the impugnedorder, remedy of revision would be applicable. The affidavit also relies onthe decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Haren Textile (P)Ltd. v/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Mumbai1. Thisobjection based on availability of alternate remedy is reiterated by Ms.Razaq, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4.Considering the above objection and without going into the otherissues sought to be raised by Mr. Naniwadekar, we relegate the petitionerto avail of the remedy of revision under Section 264 of the Income TaxAct. In support, we follow the course adopted by the coordinate Bench inHaren Textile (P) Ltd.(supra). 5.Mr. Naniwadekar states that necessary revision petition will beinstituted within two weeks from today. Accordingly, in the interest ofjustice, we clarify that the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting thispetition should be excluded for determining the issue of limitation, if any.Further, the interim relief granted by this Court on 29/11/2022 isextended for a period of six weeks from today or until the petitioner'sapplication for interim relief before the revisional authority to considerwhether the revision petition should itself be disposed of expeditiously1 [2021] 132 taxmann.com 39 (Bombay) considering the short issue involved. 6.Thus, by leaving contentions of the parties on merits open wedispose of this petition in the above terms. There shall be no order forcosts. 7.All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of thisorder. BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. MEENA Digitally signed by MEENA VISHAL VISHAL BHOIR Date: 2023.02.07 BHOIR10:40:47 +05'30' M. S. SONAK, J.