Kanjur Gas Service v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(6) Bandra (E), Mumbai & Anr
[Citation -2020-LL-0122-91]

Citation 2020-LL-0122-91
Appellant Name Kanjur Gas Service
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(6) Bandra (E), Mumbai & Anr.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 22/01/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags application for stay • statutory remedy • assessment order • demand notice
Bot Summary: PC : 1 Heard Mr. K. Gopal, learned counsel for the Petitioner; and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue for the Respondents. 3 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid assessment order was passed without giving proper notice and/or an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. He further submits that following the assessment order, notice of demand under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.12.2019, raising a huge demand of income-tax alongwith interest. 4 On the other hand, learned standing counsel Revenue for Respondents submits that against the assessment order, Petitioner has the remedy of preferring appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, court is of the view that Petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of four weeks from today. He may also file application for stay and if such an application is filed Borey 2/3 spb/ 901wp-184-2020-o.doc that may be considered on its own merit by the Appellate Authority. 6 To enable the Petitioner to effectively avail the statutory remedy, notice of demand dated 23.12.2019 shall be kept in abeyance for the aforesaid period of four weeks.


spb/ 901wp-184-2020-o.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 184 OF 2020 Kanjur Gas Service Petitioner. V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(6) Bandra (E), Mumbai & Anr. Respondents. Mr. K. Gopal, Advocate a/w. Mr. Tanmay Phadke, Mr. Satendra Pandey and Ms. Neha Paranjpe for Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve, Advocate a/w. Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for Respondents. --- CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN AND MILIND N. JADHAV,JJ. DATE : JANUARY 22, 2020. PC : 1 Heard Mr. K. Gopal, learned counsel for Petitioner; and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue for Respondents. 2 This Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India, assailing legality and correctness of assessment order dated Digitally signed 23.12.2019 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward by Shalikram P. Shalikram Borey P. Borey Date: 2020.01.23 18:27:49 +0530 Borey 1/3 spb/ 901wp-184-2020-o.doc 26(2)(6), Mumbai under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, assessing total income of Petitioner at Rs. 1,99,63,650.00/-. 3 Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that aforesaid assessment order was passed without giving proper notice and/or opportunity of hearing to Petitioner. He further submits that following assessment order, notice of demand under section 156 of Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Assessing Officer on 23.12.2019, raising huge demand of income-tax alongwith interest. 4 On other hand, learned standing counsel Revenue for Respondents submits that against assessment order, Petitioner has remedy of preferring appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 246 (A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 Having heard learned counsel for parties and on due consideration, court is of view that Petitioner may avail statutory remedy of appeal provided under Income Tax Act, 1961 within period of four weeks from today. He may also file application for stay and if such application is filed Borey 2/3 spb/ 901wp-184-2020-o.doc that may be considered on its own merit by Appellate Authority. 6 To enable Petitioner to effectively avail statutory remedy, notice of demand dated 23.12.2019 shall be kept in abeyance for aforesaid period of four weeks. 7 Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on merit and all contentions are kept open. 8 Writ Petition is disposed of. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) .. Borey 3/3 Kanjur Gas Service v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(6) Bandra (E), Mumbai & Anr
Report Error