Itxa/839/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Pune v. Shri Dinanath G. Raje

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1819 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Dinanath G. Raje ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, senior Advocate for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment of Block period 1988-89 to 1998-99, the following questions of law have been raised for our consideration:- (I)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT did not error in appreciating that the delay in issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a procedural irregularity and the same is curable u/s.292BB of the Income Tax law, the ITAT did not error in appreciating that the delay in issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a procedural irregularity and the same is curable u/s.292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT did not error in not appreciating that the assessee had co-operated during the assessment proceedings and no objection was raised either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ?in law, the ITAT did not error in not appreciating that the assessee had co-operated during the assessment proceedings and no objection was raised either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ? 2.Similar questions were raised in Income Tax Appeal No.5487 of 2010 in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai V/s. Shri Jayraj Kapadi. This Court by its order dated 15[th] July, 2011 dismissed the revenue's appeal in the matter of Jayraj Kapadia (supra). For the reasons stated therein, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)