Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Ii, Mumbai v. Vasanji Mamania
High Court
27 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Ii, Mumbai v. Vasanji Mamania
Date of order
27 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-Ii, Mumbai v. Vasanji Mamania, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2006
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai.. VersusVasanji Mamania.
..........Appellant. ...........Respondent.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, APP for the Appellant.Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM :BILAL NAZKIandS. S. SHINDE, JJ.DATED :27TH JUNE, 2008.
P.C.:
The addition of Rs.15 lakhs was made in the income of the assessee onthe basis of the piece of paper found in the premises of M/s. Adlabs Films P.Ltd. (in short AFPL). The assessee was a Director of the company. Thehandwriting was of one Shri Prakash Jha and Shri Prakash Jha had notadmitted that he had given this amount to the assessee. Notice was given toAFPL to explain the noting in the piece of paper but no opportunity was evergiven to the assessee to explain the noting in the said piece of paper.Therefore, the income was disallowed. The Tribunal agreed with the findingson the basis of the judgment in the case of Kishnichand Chela Ram (125 ITR
713) that no material could be used against the assessee without confrontingthe assessee with such material.
2.In these circumstances, we do not find that the questions framed arise
in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
Sd/-
(S. S. SHINDE, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.