Case Law › High Court › Shivshankar Singh And Others v. Assistan...

Shivshankar Singh And Others v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 23(1) And Another

High Court 20 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

20 Mar 2013

Assessment year(s)

2006-07

Outcome

Allowed

Case summary

In Shivshankar Singh And Others v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 23(1) And Another, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 148 case law →

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.716 OF 2013 Shivshankar Singh and othersversusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 23(1) and another ..... Ms. A. Vissanji with Mr. S.J. Mehta for the Petitioners.Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Respondents. ..... ..Petitioners. ..Respondents. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, ANDA.A. SAYED, JJ. 20 March 2013. P.C. : Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee and counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue state that the facts of the present case are similar to those of Writ Petition (Lodg) 715 of 2013 which has been allowed by a judgment delivered today. In the present case also the reopening is beyond a period of four years. For the reasons indicated by the Court while allowing the companion Petition, rule is made absolute by setting aside the notice dated 28 March 2012 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act purporting to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, 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.