Rpw/71/2012 Of Babulal Kishoringji Dudawat v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune And Ors
High Court
27 Jun 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Rpw/71/2012 Of Babulal Kishoringji Dudawat v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune And Ors
Date of order
27 Jun 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Rpw/71/2012 Of Babulal Kishoringji Dudawat v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Pune And Ors, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 6Review Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.71 OF 2012IN WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2012
Mr. Babulal Kishoringji Dudhawat
..Petitioner.
V/s.
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Pune & Ors.
..Respondents.
Mr. J.D. Mistri, senior Advocate with Ms. Aarti Sathe & Kalpesh Turalkar for the petitioner.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondents.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 27TH JUNE, 2012
P.C. :-
1.By this Review Petition, the petitioner seeks recalling of our order passed in Writ Petition No.3032 of 2011 on 1[st] August, 2011.
2.By the said order dated 1[st] August, 2011, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that no fault can be found with orders passed by the income Tax authorities, because, although the petitioner claims that the seized gold belongs to the
1/2
rpw71-12
customers of the petitioner, none of the customers of the petitioner have come forward to claim the gold. It is the case of the review petitioner that after the gold was seized by the authorities, the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings has paid the amount equivalent to the gold belonging to the respective customers after obtaining proper receipt in that behalf. It is the case of the petitioner that the documents to that effect were inadvertently not produced at the time of hearing the Writ Petition.
3.Since the documents to the above effect are now produced by the petitioner, in our opinion, it is just and proper to recall the order dated 1[st] August, 2011, so that fresh order can be passed after considering the aforesaid documents.
4.Accordingly, the order passed in Writ Petition No.3032 of 2011 on 1[st] August, 2011 is recalled and the petition is restored to the file. Office to place the Writ Petition No.3032 of 2011 before the regular Bench for fresh decision.
5.All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
6Review Petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as
to costs.
(A.A. SAYED)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
2/2
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.