Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil, Mumbai v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vi, Mumbai & Ors
High Court
13 Jul 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil, Mumbai v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vi, Mumbai & Ors
Date of order
13 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil, Mumbai v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vi, Mumbai & Ors, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.762 OF 2009
Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil, Mumbai. ...Petitioner.v.
Commissioner of Income-tax-VI, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents.
Ms.A.Vissanji with S.J.Mehta, advs. For the Petitioner.Mr.J.S.Saluja, adv. For the Respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 13th July , 2009
P.C.
1
Rule. Heard Forthwith.
2Petitioner is before this Court considering the proceeding under Section 179, which have been initiated against him. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not given sufficient opportunity before the respondent no.2 to make out a case as to why he is not liable. Apart from that it is pointed out that majority shareholders were Mr.B.J.Seth and the department in the case of Mr.Amal Banerjee, Mr.B.J.Seth and Mr. Shashikant Sathe and Dr. A.A.Hakim since deceased have discharged them of liability. Petitioner upto the year 1994 was the Managing Director and late Dr. Hakim was the Chairman. In our opinion,
considering these facts and circumstances, opportunity would have been given to the petitioner to make out case before the respondent no.2. At the same time, respondents will have to hear the case of the petitioner alongwith other directors, who have since been discharged. Petitioner to appear before the respondent no.2 on 28[th] July, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, respondent no.2 to complete the proceedings within six months from today.
3Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(J.H. BHATIA,J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,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.