Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/3756/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/3756/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay.city- Xvi v. Late Shri P.r.kamani L/H Smt.s.p.kamani

High Court 03 Oct 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3756/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay.city- Xvi v. Late Shri P.r.kamani L/H Smt.s.p.kamani
Date of order
03 Oct 2006
Assessment year(s)
1966-67
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/3756/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay.city- Xvi v. Late Shri P.r.kamani L/H Smt.s.p.kamani, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question of law which is sought to be raised is as follows:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A) holding that the assessment order for A.Y.

Decision: Hence appeal is dismissed.

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 BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.298 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.298 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. Late Shri P.R. Kamani L/h. D.P.Kamani ..Respondent. Mr.A.N.Kotangale for appellant. Mr.V.B.Joshi with S.G.Dalal for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2006. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- . Heard Mr.Kotangale for the appellant. Mr. Joshi appears for respondent. The assessment of income of the respondent for the assessment year 1966-67 was finalised under section 143(3) on 28/11/1968. More than 21 years passed and on 29th March, 1990 notice under section 148 was issued to reopen the assessment. The assessing officer passed an assessment order permitting the reopening. That order was upturned by the C.I.T. (A) and the order passed by the C.I.T. (A) is left undisturbed by the Tribunal by its order dated 24/6/2002. It is this order which is sought to be - = : 2 : = - challenged in the present appeal. . The question of law which is sought to be raised is as follows:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A) holding that the assessment order for A.Y. 1966-67 as null and void on the ground that the freezing of the period till the case is pending with the Settlement Commission was not covered u/s. 245HA(3) ? " 2. In our view, in the facts of the present case, the period of limitation prevalent at the relevant time was 16 years and that was over long back and, therefore, there was no question of reopening the assessment which was finalised some 21 years earlier. There is no error in the decision given by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arise in this case. Hence appeal is dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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