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.
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.