Wp/1677/2022 Of Anil Chandravadan Mistry v. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(1)(1)

Digitallysigned byGAURIGAURI AMITAMITGAEKWAD1/2Date:GAEKWAD2022.04.0611:22:47+0530IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1677 OF 2022 Anil Chandravadan Mistry ….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1)(1) ….Respondent ---- Ms. Akshita Bhandari a/w. Mr. Nishit M. Gandhi for petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 4[th] APRIL 2022 P.C.: 1In this case the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is dated 30[th] June 2021 but the procedure followedis the old procedure which came to be replaced by the Finance Act, 2021with effect from 1[st] April, 2021. 2Ms. Bhandari states that she does not have any instructions ofany assessment order having been communicated to petitioner. Statementaccepted. Even if the assessment order is passed, still it will be non-est asthe notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is being set aside. 3We have already held in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1) & Ors.[1]that such notices are bad in law and have to be quashed. Accordingly, notice 1. Writ Petition No.1334 of 2021 dated 29[th] March, 2022. Gauri Gaekwad impugned in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside. 4Petition disposed accordingly. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)