Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1405 - HC - Income TaxRevenue has processed the paper returns filed by Petitioner u/s 143(1) - Petitioner keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties Petitions may be disposed with liberty to take such steps as advised in accordance with law. HELD THAT - We need to note that in the order 2022 (3) TMI 1627 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT leave to file paper returns was granted subject to final outcome in the Petitions. Since the paper returns have been processed in our view nothing will remain in these Petitions. Petitions are disposed accordingly with the liberty as prayed for. We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter.
**Summary of the Judgment:**In the Bombay High Court, Justices K. R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale presided over a matter involving the petitioner represented by Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla and others, against the Revenue represented by Mr. N. Venkatraman and others.1. The petitioner was granted permission by the court on 24th November 2022 to file paper returns for the Assessment Years (AY) 2021-22 and 2022-23.2. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for the respondents confirmed that, following the court's directions on 5th February 2024, the Revenue processed these paper returns under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. The petitioner, through Mr. Pardiwalla, expressed grievances regarding the processing of the returns and indicated intentions to pursue further legal action, including filing an appeal, while preserving all rights and contentions.4. The court noted that the leave to file paper returns was conditional on the final outcome of the petitions. Since the returns have been processed, the court deemed that no further issues remain in these petitions.5. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to take further legal steps as advised.6. The court clarified that it made no observations on the merits of the case.
|