Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay.City- Xvi. v. Late Shri P.R.Kamani L/H Smt.S.P.Kamani

Bombay HC3 Oct 2006ITXA/3756/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Income Tax Appeal (Lodg.) No. 298 of 2003, the Court dismissed the Commissioner of Income-tax's appeal against the Tribunal. The Court held that a notice under section 148 issued 21 years after the original assessment under section 143(3) was void as the period of limitation had expired, rendering no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax was dismissed, allowing the Tribunal's decision that the reopening notice was time-barred.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay.City- Xvi. Vs Late Shri… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.298 OF 2003

¶4

 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Late Shri P.R. Kamani
 L/h. D.P.Kamani ..Respondent.

¶7

 Mr.A.N.Kotangale for appellant.

¶8

 Mr.V.B.Joshi with S.G.Dalal for respondent.

¶9

CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
 J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2006.
P.C. :-

¶11

 . Heard Mr.Kotangale for the appellant. Mr.

¶12

 Joshi appears for respondent. The assessment of income
 of the respondent for the assessment year 1966-67 was
 finalised under section 143(3) on 28/11/1968. More
 than 21 years passed and on 29th March, 1990 notice
 under section 148 was issued to reopen the assessment.
 The assessing officer passed an assessment order
 permitting the reopening. That order was upturned by
 the C.I.T. (A) and the order passed by the C.I.T. (A)
 is left undisturbed by the Tribunal by its order dated
 24/6/2002. It is this order which is sought to be

¶13

 - = : 2 : = -

¶14

 challenged in the present appeal.

¶15

 . The question of law which is sought to be

¶16

 raised is as follows:-

¶17

 "Whether on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case and in law, the
 Tribunal was justified in upholding the
 order of the CIT (A) holding that the
 assessment order for A.Y. 1966-67 as null
 and void on the ground that the freezing of
 the period till the case is pending with the
 Settlement Commission was not covered u/s.
 245HA(3) ? "

¶18

 2. In our view, in the facts of the present

¶19

 case, the period of limitation prevalent at the

¶20

 relevant time was 16 years and that was over long back
 and, therefore, there was no question of reopening the
 assessment which was finalised some 21 years earlier.
 There is no error in the decision given by the
 Tribunal. No substantial question of law arise in this
 case. Hence appeal is dismissed.

¶21

(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)

¶22

 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay.City- Xvi. v. Late Shri P.R.Kamani L/H Smt.S.P.Kamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Bombay.City- Xvi. v. Late Shri P.R.Kamani L/H Smt.S.P.Kamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Drugs Manufacturers Association and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corpn.

Tanu Healthcare Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income-Tax Bombay,City- Viii. Vs Photophone Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai,City- Viii,Mumbai, Vs M/S Nivan Holding P.Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Late Shri. P.R. Kamani