Itr/163/2000 Of Shri9 V.s.kanodia v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax City- ,Mumbai
High Court
05 Dec 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itr/163/2000 Of Shri9 V.s.kanodia v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax City- ,Mumbai
Date of order
05 Dec 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itr/163/2000 Of Shri9 V.s.kanodia v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax City- ,Mumbai, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Issue: We specifically asked him whether the Reference was served earlier upon the respondent Revenue and if so was it in accordance with Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (Rules).
Decision: 7.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.163 OF 2000
Shri V.S. Kandodia .. Applicant v/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai City – IX, Mumbai .. Respondent
Mr. Jitendra Singh for the applicant None for the respondent
P.C.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 5[th] DECEMBER, 2016.
1.This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) relates to Assessment Years 1984-85 and 1985-86. None appears for the respondent assessee.
2.The applicant assessee has filed an affidavit dated 14[th] July, 2016 evidencing the service of the Reference upon the Revenue only in June, 2015. We specifically asked him whether the Reference was served earlier upon the respondent Revenue and if so was it in accordance with Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (Rules). Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant fairly states that there is no evidence of service on the respondent Revenue prior to June, 2015.
3.In terms of Rule 658 of the Rules, the person at whose instance the Reference has been made by the Tribunal to this Court, shall apply to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to issue a notice fixing a date for hearing of the Reference. Moreover, this notice is to be served upon the opposite party within a period of two months from the receipt of the Reference in the High Court from the Tribunal.
4.The applicant assessee has not carried out its obligation as required under Rule 658 of the Rules. Even, the notice which has been served upon the respondent Revenue in June, 2015 is not in accordance with Rule 658 of the Rules as in fact no application under Rule 658 appears to have been made to the Prothonotary and Senior Master to have a notice issued after fixing a date for the hearing of this Reference.
5.From the above, it is evident that the applicant is not interested in pursuing this Reference.
6.Therefore, Reference is returned unanswered.
7.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
(A.K. MENON, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.