Diwakar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Ofïcer Ward 5 (1)(1), Mumbai & Anr
High Court
04 Jan 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Diwakar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Ofïcer Ward 5 (1)(1), Mumbai & Anr
Date of order
04 Jan 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Diwakar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Ofïcer Ward 5 (1)(1), Mumbai & Anr, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Decision: Therefore, the order dated 16[th]August, 2021, impugned in the Petition, is quashed and setaside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
SHALIKRAMDigitally signed bySHALIKRAMPRALHADRAOBOREYPRALHADRAO BOREYDate: 2022.01.0510:10:43 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3791 OF 2021
Diwakar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
… Petitioner.
Vs.
Income Tax OfÏcer Ward 5 (1)(1), Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents.
---
Mr. Rohan Deshpande, Advocate a/w. Ms. Rucha Vaidya i/by Ms.Farzeen Khambatta for the Petitioner.Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for Respondents - Revenue.
---
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & R.N. LADDHA, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 04, 2022
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.C. :
1.Mr. Deshpande, for the Petitioner submits that in theobjections filed by the Petitioner to the reasons for re-opening,the Petitioner had mentioned certain statements of facts whichhave not been dealt-with in the order, disposing the objections.The order dated 16[th] August, 2021 is also impugned in thispetition.
2. Having considered the order impugned, we would not saythat Mr. Deshpande is incorrect. Therefore, the order dated 16[th]August, 2021, impugned in the Petition, is quashed and setaside. Assessing OfÏcer shall consider the objections filed bythe Petitioner once again and after giving a personal hearing tothe Petitioner, he may pass such orders as he may deem fit inaccordance with law on Petitioner’s objections to re-opening.This exercise to be completed within six weeks from today.
3.We clarify that we have not made any observationson the merits of the matter.
4. Petition is disposed.
(R.N. LADDHA,J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, 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.
EaseValue