Rajesh Shah v. The Income Tax Officer Respondent Ward-(22)11, Mumbai
High Court
21 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Rajesh Shah v. The Income Tax Officer Respondent Ward-(22)11, Mumbai
Date of order
21 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Rajesh Shah v. The Income Tax Officer Respondent Ward-(22)11, Mumbai, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 52 OF 2007
Rajesh ShahVs.
Appellant
The Income Tax OfficerRespondentWard-(22)11, Mumbai
Mr. Atul Jasani with P. C. Tripathi, for theappellant.Mr. N. A. Kazi, for the respondent.
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, &A. A. KUMBHKONI, JJ.DATE : JULY 21, 2008.
PC :-
1.All questions framed in the memo of appear arenot necessarily question of law and do not deserve to admitted. However, after hearing the parties, we reframethe question in following terms and decide the questionafter hearing counsel for parties.
1.Whether the penalty could have been imposed
under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,
without issuing a show-cause notice and giving achance of hearing to an assessee?
2.The appellate authority came to the conclusion
be
- 3 -
appellant to explain
its
Officer, who shall hear the parties on the question of
penalty.
4.The assessee shall without further notice from
Officer shall give hearing on 11th September, 2008 and
shall decide the matter within one week thereafter.
Sd/-[ BILAL NAZKI, J.]
Sd/-[ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, 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.