Ca/9045/2007 Of Bhimrao Vitthalrao Kapse v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I And 2 Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 9045 of 2007 in Misc. Civil Application (Review) St. No.17952 of 2007 in W.P. No. 5687 of 2004 (D) (Bhimrao s/o. Vitthalrao Kapse .vs. The Commr. of Income Tax-I, Nagpurand Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's ordersand Registrar's orders. - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- HeardMr.S.N.Bhattad,Adv.fortheApplicantandMr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the Respondent No.1. Civil Application No. 9045 of 2007 is moved by theapplicant for condonation of delay in filing the review petition.Considered the contentions. Perused the Civil Application. For thereasons stated in the Civil Application, delay is condoned.Theapplication is accordingly allowed. Misc. Civil Application (Review) St. No.17952/2007 HeardMr.S.N.Bhattad,Adv.fortheApplicantandMr.Anand Parchure, Adv. for the Respondent No.1. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respectivecounsel. Perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that this Court after taking into consideration the contentionscanvassed by the respective parties as well as considering the orderpassed by the Revisional Authority which was impugned in the WritPetition concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax has takeninto consideration the evidence, which was available on record andfound that the amount reflected in the Bank Account No.2114 hasnothing to do with the Bank Account of the Society which is separate.Similarly, Mr.Sontakke as well as Mrs. Kusum Kapse did not haveostensible income source and in absence therefore, it was concludedby us that the findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Taxwere just and proper. So far as question of double taxation isconcerned, we have also mentioned in the order sthat the same wasnot specifically raised by the review petitioner before the RevisionalAuthority. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showingindulgence. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj