M/S.gautam Steel v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income
High Court
30 Jul 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.gautam Steel v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income
Date of order
30 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.gautam Steel v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1051 OF 2007
M/s.Gautam Steel .. Petitioner.
Versus
The Dy. Commissioner of Income-
tax, Ward No.15(1) & 4 ors. .. Respondents.
Mr.V.J. Pandit with Mr.P.P. Prabhu for the
petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale & Mr.S.M. Shah for the
respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 30TH JULY, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for quiet
a considerable length of time, we find at the
highest as of now the grievance would be in respect
of Annexure "A" to the affidavit dated 6th July,
2007 of Smt.Banita Devi Naorem, Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax. On behalf of the petitioner, the
learned counsel points out that once effect to the
order of the Tribunal had to be given effect to and
it was not open to the revenue to make adjustments
without complying with the mandate of Section 245 of
the Income Tax Act.
2
3. On behalf of the revenue, learned counsel
fairly concede on perusal of records that no notice
was given to the petitioner before the adjustments
were made. In the light of that, present petition
can be disposed of by issuing following directions :
i) Revenue to make available to the
petitioner copies of the order under heading
adjustments within a period of four weeks
from today.
ii) On receipt of such orders, it will be
open to the petitioner to apply to the
respondent No.1 for passing appropriate
orders to give effect to the order of the
Tribunal according to law within four weeks
thereafter.
iii) The respondent No.1 thereafter on
consideration of the representation made by
the petitioner herein to pass appropriate
order according to law including failure to
issue notice for adjustments, at any rate
not later than four weeks from the receipt
of the representation.
iv) If notice is given to the assessee
3
for adjustments, then after giving further
opportunity to the assessee, to pass
appropriate order after receipt of reply to
the show cause notice.
v) If the petitioner’s are still
aggrieved, it will be open to the petitioner
to take recourse of law which they are
entitled to or in the alternative side
further directions from this Court, if there
is non compliance of these directions.
3. With the above directions, Rule is made
absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(F.I. REBELLO, 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.