Amar Dhananjay Patil v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Amar Dhananjay Patil relied on Hexaware Technologies in challenging the impugned assessment and notice. The Revenue opposed relief, pointing to its pending SLP against Hexaware and seeking independent examination. Appeals against the assessment were already pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).

Source: Paragraphs 1–3(a); PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court held the controversy covered by Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. v. ITO, (2025) 175 taxmann.com 303 (Bombay). Its solution was to preserve the challenge in the existing appellate proceedings while protecting against action on the assessment. It did not independently determine the Hexaware objection or record any Supreme Court outcome.

Source: Paragraphs 2–3; PDF pp.2–3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The petitioner must pursue the pending appeals and may raise invalidity of the notice and order in light of Hexaware. An application seeking disposal on that basis may be made and must be considered expeditiously with all contentions. Until the appellate proceedings are decided, the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon. All contentions remain open; the writ proceedings were disposed of without costs.

Source: Paragraphs 3(a)–(d),4; PDF pp.2–3

4. OUTCOME

The petitioner obtained protection against action on the assessment pending appellate decision. The assessment and notice were not quashed; the substantive dispute remains for the appellate forum.

Source: Paragraphs 3–4; PDF pp.2–3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

An appellate route with effective protection

The operative direction couples continuation of an already-filed appeal with protection against action on the assessment. Its practical value lies in allowing the challenge to be heard without enforcement under that assessment in the meantime. It does not establish that the taxpayer has already succeeded on jurisdiction.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3

The application and the duration serve different functions

The optional application asks for appellate disposal in light of Hexaware and triggers expeditious consideration, not an automatic allowance of the appeal. The protective direction itself lasts until the appellate proceedings are decided; the source sets no fixed number of days and does not condition protection on a favourable merits ruling.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3

Keep the preserved issue within its record

Revenue’s statement that its SLP was pending is part of the hearing record, not verification of its later status. The order does not identify the assessment year, notice date or numbered tax provision; those particulars must come from the underlying assessment and appeal record. All contentions were expressly left open.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2 · PDF p.3