Case LawHigh Court › The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v....

The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohta,Jj

High Court 07 Apr 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohta,Jj
Date of order
07 Apr 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohta,Jj, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.

Decision: Writ Petition is rejected.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.292 OF 2006 H. Srinivasulu : Petitioner V/s. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.S.G.Pillai for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Chavan with Ms Ritu Singh for the respondents. ... CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATE : APRIL 7, 2006. P.C. 1. The petitioner, in the instant case, challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which his application which was made within time for correction of entry of Date of Birth has been rejected. The earlier entry was made based on school records. The change is sought based on the horoscope which was drawn up. 2. In State of Punjabv. Mohinder Singh[(2005) 3 SCC 702], the apex Court has observed that horoscope is a very weak piece of material to prove age of a person. In most cases, the maker of it may not be available to prove that -: 2 :- it was made immediately after the birth. A heavy onus lies on the person who wants to press it into service to prove its authenticity. In other words, the document has to be proved under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act like any other document. The mere fact that the document is old by itself cannot be the basis for treating the document as proved. In the instant case, once the entry was made based on school records, the horoscope for effecting changes cannot be considered as having displaced the entries in the school records. In the instant case, the entry was made on the basis of the school records. No interference is called for. 3. Writ Petition is rejected. F.I. REBELLO, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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