Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/148/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/148/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Mumbai v. M/S.bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt.ltd

High Court 22 Apr 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/148/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Mumbai v. M/S.bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt.ltd
Date of order
22 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/148/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii Mumbai v. M/S.bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.148 OF 2009The Commissioner of Income Tax..AppellantVs.M/s.Bharat Pulverising Mills Pvt.Ltd. ..RespondentMr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant.Mr.Deepak Tralshawala with Mr.Prashant Ghelanii/b. Tanvi Gandhi & Saten Vora for respondent.CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATE : 22ND APRIL,2009P.C.1.Heard the learned Counsel for parties. 2.The Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 5th December, 2006contending that the Tribunal was not correct inupholding the CIT(A)’s order of quashing thereassessment order as illegal and void-ab-initio,ignoring and without appreciating the evidence on record and that the opportunity of being heard given to the assessee. 3.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf ofrespondent strongly canvassed that it was obligatoryon the part of Revenue to supply the reasons recordedfor reopening of assessment under section 147 of theIncome Tax Act,1961. Since no reasons were given,respondent was deprived of the right to object to thereasons recorded. He, thus, submits that order of the Tribunal, is in accordance with law and it need not be interfered with. 4.During the course of hearing, the reasons terms of this order by consent of parties. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan