Bombay High Court Quashes Section 271D Penalty Order as Issue Already Settled by Precedent
Case Details
Case Name: Hiraman Ramchandra Rithe Vs Union of India
Court: Bombay High Court
Impugned Order Date: 20.02.2026
Provisions Involved: Section 271-D and Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Background and Facts
In this matter, the assessee approached the Bombay High Court challenging a penalty order dated 20.02.2026 passed under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an accompanying demand notice issued under Section 156 of the same date.
The assessee's counsel contended before the Court that the legal question arising in this petition stood conclusively addressed by a prior ruling of a Coordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court delivered at the Principal Seat in Writ Petition (L) No. 42864 of 2025 dated 03.02.2026, and that the present matter was entirely governed by that decision.
Contentions Raised by the Parties
Assessee's Argument
The assessee's legal representative submitted that the issue raised in the present petition was squarely and directly covered by the earlier Coordinate Bench decision in Writ Petition (L) No. 42864 of 2025. It was urged that given the existence of a binding precedent, the High Court ought to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned penalty order.
Revenue's Objection
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Income Tax Department strongly resisted the petition. The primary objection raised was that the assessee had an alternate efficacious remedy available under the law and therefore the High Court should decline to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction on that basis. The Union of India, appearing as a separate respondent, also supported the validity of the impugned order and sought its sustenance.