Case LawHigh Court › Madan Asananad Maker And Another v. Libe...

Madan Asananad Maker And Another v. Liberty To Delete Respondent

High Court 19 Nov 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Madan Asananad Maker And Another v. Liberty To Delete Respondent
Date of order
19 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Madan Asananad Maker And Another v. Liberty To Delete Respondent, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: 1 and 2, the impugned order is set aside with liberty to thedepartment to pass a fresh order, after giving a reasonable opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners.

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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1573 of 2008 Madan Asananad Maker and another ... Petitioners vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 7(3) and Ors. . Respondents Mr. D.H. Mehta, instructed by M/s. MKV Juris, for the petitioners.Mr. B.M. Chatterjee for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:P.B. MAJMUDAR &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE:NOVEMBER 19, 2008. P.C. Liberty to delete respondent No.3 is granted. Name of respondent No.3 stands deleted from the array of parties. 2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearingfor respondent Nos. 1 and 2 waives service of rule. 3. By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 7(3), Mumbai,respondent No.2 herein, dated 16[th] April, 2008. The respondent No.2, by theimpugned order, set aside the transaction entered into between the originalowner of the property-assessee and the present petitioners. 4.The grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned order ispassed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to leadevidence to show that the transaction in question is genuine. Since it is notin dispute that the impugned order is passed without giving any hearing tothe petitioners, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing forrespondent Nos. 1 and 2, the impugned order is set aside with liberty to thedepartment to pass a fresh order, after giving a reasonable opportunity ofhearing to the petitioners. It will be open to the petitioners to lead whateverevidence they want to rely upon before the authority in this connection. Tilla fresh decision is taken by the authority, the property in question shallremain under attachment and the attachment will continue for a furtherperiod of four weeks from the date of passing the fresh order by theauthority. 5.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The matter isremitted to the authority to decide the matter afresh as indicated above.There shall be no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, 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.
✅ Get help with an income-tax 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