Itxa/672/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Of Income-Tax-11,Mum v. Dr. Lekha Pathak
High Court
06 Oct 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/672/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Of Income-Tax-11,Mum v. Dr. Lekha Pathak
Date of order
06 Oct 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/672/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Of Income-Tax-11,Mum v. Dr. Lekha Pathak, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Appeals are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.672 OF 2008
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.333 OF 2008
...
The Commissioner of Income-tax-11 ...Appellant
v/s.
Dr.Lekha Pathak ...Respondent
...
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr.K.Gopal for the Respondent.
...
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH&
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED:6TH OCTOBER, 2008
P.C.:
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. In these two Appeals relating to two assessment
years the claim of the assessee regarding the agricultural income from paddy was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by relying upon the statements of third persons who were managing the property of the assessee. The Tribunal deleted the addition mainly
- 2 -
on the ground that the assessee was not confronted
with those statements.
3. In these circumstances, without going into the
merits of the case, we set aside the orders passed by
the Assessing Officer as well as the order of the
Tribunal and remand the matters back to the Assessing
Officer to decide the matter afresh in so far as it
relates to making additions by disallowing the
agricultural income, namely income from paddy claimed
to have been cultivated and sold by the assessee.
4. Appeals are allowed in the above terms with no
order as to costs.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.