Wp/3309/2019 Of Hiren Harakhchand Rambhia v. The Income Tax Officer-27(1)(3) And 2 Ors
High Court
17 Nov 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/3309/2019 Of Hiren Harakhchand Rambhia v. The Income Tax Officer-27(1)(3) And 2 Ors
Date of order
17 Nov 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/3309/2019 Of Hiren Harakhchand Rambhia v. The Income Tax Officer-27(1)(3) And 2 Ors, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Digitallysigned byPURTIPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2021.11.1817:41:37+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3309 OF 2019
Hiren Harakhchand Rambhia V/s.The Income Tax Officer – 27 (1) (3)and Ors.
….Petitioner
…Respondents
----
Mr. Devendra H. Jain for Petitioner.Mr. N.C. Mohanty for Respondents-Revenue.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 17[th] NOVEMBER 2021
P.C. :
1.Petitioner is challenging the notice issued by respondent underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for reopening all issuesunder Section 147 of the Act.
2.Mr. Jain at the outset submitted that there has to be in approvalunder Section 151 of the Act for reopening of issue under Section 147 of theAct, prior to issuance of notice. Mr. Jain submitted that notice, copywhereof is at Exhibit B to the petition is dated 30[th] March, 2019 whereas thesanction which has been endorsed in the reasons for reopening annexed tothe affidavit in reply does not mention the date on which such sanction wasmade. But the forwarding letter addressed to the concerned wardforwarding the sanction is dated 31[st] March, 2019. According to Mr. Jain
therefore court should proceed on the basis that the sanction was grantedon 31[st] March, 2019 and on the date notice under Section 148 of the Actwas issued there was no sanction in place. Therefore, issuance of noticeitself was illegal. These are questions of fact which we are unable toconsider in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Moreover, Mr. Jain submitted that the reasons with the endorsement onsanction was not received by petitioner before the petition was filed. Thereis not even an averment to this fact in the petition.
3.In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain thepetition. Petition dismissed.
4.However, we clarify that petitioner may raise all grounds beforethe concerned authority.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
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.