Dismissed

The C.I.T.,Bombay City Xv,Bombay v. Late Shri K.C.Shah through Legal Heir Shri Shripal K.Shah,B'Bay

Bombay HC19 Sept 2005ITA/205/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench rejected an Income Tax Application for non-compliance. The revenue appealed against an assessment but failed to produce a requested confessional statement despite previous directions and adjournments, leading the court to dismiss the application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for further time to produce the confessional statement rejected; application dismissed for non-compliance with prior court orders.

The C.I.T.,Bombay City Xv,Bombay Vs Late Shri K.C.Shah through… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.205 OF 2000

¶4

 The Commissioner of Income Tax
 City-XV, Bombay .. Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶5

 Late Shri K.C. Shah .. Respondent.

¶6

 Mr.Ashok Kotangale i/b. Mr.R.N. Bandopadhyay for
 the petitioner.

¶7

 Ms.Neetu Chomal with Mr.Pradeep Uchil i/b. D.M.
 Harish & Co. for the respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶9

 DATED : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2005.
P.C. :

¶10

 1. In spite of grant of two adjournments, the

¶11

 revenue has not taken care to comply with the
 directions issued by this court contained in the
 order dated 29th August, 2005 followed by another
 order dated 12th September, 2005 though the revenue
 was given last chance to produce the confessional
 statement made by the assessee.

¶12

 2. The directions to produce confessional
 statement necessitated because in the assessment
 order, the assessing officer has mentioned that the
 sale of rights in Mysore House has been for

¶13

¶14

 Rs.12,50,000/-; whereas; as per assessee’s
 confession, over and above that amount, an amount of
 Rs.21,50,000/- in cash was received, that is how he
 treated total receipt in the sum of Rs.34,00,000/-.
 Against this factual backdrop, at the instance of the
 Revenue the question sought to be raised in the
 appeal is: "whether the Tribunal was justified in
 directing the assessing officer to take the sale
 consideration at Rs.34,00,000/- instead of
 Rs.46,50,000/- in spite of the fact that the assessee
 has confessed having received Rs.34,00,000/- in cash
 and Rs.12,50,000/- by cheque".

¶15

 3. The contention sought to be raised by the
 Revenue and the figures sought to be projected in
 question of law framed are contrary to the figures
 worked out by the assessing officer in the original
 order. As per the order of the assessing officer as
 stated above, Rs.34,00,000/- constituted an amount of
 cash component in the sum of Rs.21,50,000/-; whereas
 the question sought to be framed is on the premise
 that an amount of Rs.34,00,000/- in cash was taken
 over and above Rs.12,50,000/- shown by way of
 consideration in the conveyance deed.

¶16

 4. In order to get clear picture, the Revenue
 was directed to produce confessional statement.

¶17

¶18

 However, no such statement has been produced on
 record in spite of grant of two opportunities. We do
 not think that the Revenue is justified in seeking
 further time to produce the confessional statement.
 Prayer for further time is rejected.

¶19

 5. In the above view of the matter, we have no
 option but to reject this application for
 non-compliance of the orders of this court dated 29th
 August, 2005 and 12th September, 2005 respectively
 with no order as to costs.

¶20

 (V.C. DAGA, J.)

¶21

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

The C.I.T.,Bombay City Xv,Bombay v. Late Shri K.C.Shah through Legal Heir Shri Shripal K.Shah,B'Bay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.I.T.,Bombay City Xv,Bombay v. Late Shri K.C.Shah through Legal Heir Shri Shripal K.Shah,B'Bay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.G.Rana Krishnan Metal Industries. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Subhash Chandra Tulsyan Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Shantial Khusalbdas Co. Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Philips Glass India Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Maker Development Services Pvt. Ltd.

Administrator of the Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India Vs Mahakali Flyover Company Ltd. and Anr.