Case LawHigh Court › Wp/3738/2021 Of Nakul Ashok Jain v. The...

Wp/3738/2021 Of Nakul Ashok Jain v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -25 (3)(5) And 3 Ors

High Court 04 Apr 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/3738/2021 Of Nakul Ashok Jain v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -25 (3)(5) And 3 Ors
Date of order
04 Apr 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp/3738/2021 Of Nakul Ashok Jain v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -25 (3)(5) And 3 Ors, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.

Decision: Therefore, in our view, thisassessment order dated 22[nd] September 2021 is to be quashed and set aside.Ordered accordingly.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3738 OF 2021 Nakul Ashok Jain ….Petitioner V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3)(5) and Ors. ….Respondents ---- Ms. Namrata Kasale for petitioner.Mr. Sham Walve for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 4[th] APRIL 2022 P.C.: 1At the outset, in the order dated 23[rd] February 2022, inparagraph 2, the date “22[nd] September 2021” to be corrected to read as“27[th] September 2021 ” and the date “27[th] September 2021 ” to be correctedto read as “22[nd] September 2021 ”. 2Rest of the order remains unaltered. Original order to becorrected accordingly. 3Heard Mr. Walve and Ms. Kasale. 4Here is a case where the assessment order dated22[nd ]September 2021 came to be passed without even disposing petitioner’sobjections to the reopening of assessment. Therefore, in our view, thisassessment order dated 22[nd] September 2021 is to be quashed and set aside.Ordered accordingly. 5The concerned authority shall consider the objections filedby petitioner to the notice issued for reopening the assessmentand dispose the objections within six weeks of this order beinguploaded. Before disposing the objections, the concerned authority, whichwill be the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) shall grant a personalhearing and the notice of personal hearing shall be given at least sevenworking days in advance. 6If the JAO wishes to rely on any judgments/orders of any Courtor Tribunal to pass an order disposing the objection, he shall provide a listthereof along with the notice for personal hearing so that petitioner will beable to deal with or distinguish those judgments/orders during the personalhearing. 7Respondent shall strictly comply with the mandatory provisionsof Section 144B if he wishes to process further orders disposing theassessment. 8Consequently, the demand notice dated 22[nd] September 2021issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, also stand quashedand set aside. So also the penalty notice dated 22[nd] September 2021, copy ofwhich is tendered by Ms. Kasale, is also quashed and set aside. 9Petition disposed. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan