Wp/3614/2019 Of Kishore Mirchandani v. Income Tax Officer International Tax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

PURTIPRASADPARAB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYDigitally signed byPURTI PRASADORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONPARABDate: 2022.01.1117:21:31 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 3614 OF 2019 Kishore Mirchandani ….Petitioner V/s. Income Tax Officer InternationalTax Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai …Respondent ---- Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ashish Sodhani and Mr.AfaanArshad i/b Nishith Desai Associates for Petitioner.Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & R.N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : 5[th] JANUARY, 2022 P.C. : 1.Mr. Pardiwalla states that the basis of initiation of proceedingsunder Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) now no longersurvives in the light of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2021 wherebyamendments have been effected to Section 9 of the Act and in particular toexplanation 5. Mr. Pardiwalla further submitted that by virtue of theAmendment Act, it is clarified that nothing in explanation 5 shall apply tothe proceedings inter alia Section 147 and the notice is one withoutjurisdiction and consequently, proceedings pursuant thereto are required tobe set aside. Mr. Pardiwalla further submitted that there were identicalmatters before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru where abunch of 8 or 9 petitions were disposed because respondents had filed amemo as under : “The petitioner in the above matter has challenged the reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year2012-13. During the course of hearing the assessee contended that inview of Amendment to Section 9 of the Act by Taxation Laws(Amendment) Act 2021 dated 30/08/2021, the transaction beingprior to 28/05/2012, the reopening of assessment is not sustainable.The contention of the assessee has been examined and the saidcontention is correct. Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice andequity.” 2. Mr. Chhotaray states that this court can quash the impugned order dated 30[th] March, 2019 by which petitioner’s objections were rejectedand direct the concerned authority to consider Mr. Pardiwalla’s statement asrecorded above along with the objections already filed and pass such orders as deemed fit. 3.Mr. Pardiwalla states that it is not an unfair suggestion. 4.Therefore, the order dated 30[th] November, 2019 impugned inthis petition is quashed and set aside. 5.Petitioner to place before the concerned authority their submissionsalongwith copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka atBengaluru and the concerned authority shall consider the same and passappropriate orders within 8 weeks from the date this order is uploaded. Ifpetitioner requests, the concerned authority shall also give personal hearing topetitioner and date for personal hearing shall be communicated seven days inadvance. 6.Petition disposed. (R.N. LADDHA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)