Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Haz...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Hazraben A. Merchant

High Court 19 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Hazraben A. Merchant
Date of order
19 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Hazraben A. Merchant, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-17 .. Appellant Vs. Hazraben A. Merchant .. Respondent. Mr. D.K. Kamwal for the Appellant.Mr. Kirit Hakani with Mr. Ajay R. Singh for the Respondent. CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1 The question of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal reads thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was correct in holding that the unexplained cash and unexplained deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which were found in the control of the assessee were part of the undisclosed income of the firms and company of the group to which the assessee belonged to, deposit the fact that the assessee could not produce any evidence to prove that source of these unexplained cash and deposits were the undisclosed income of these firms and the company? 2It is not in dispute that the undisclosed cash and unexplained deposit found during the course of search have been offered to tax by the firm in which the Assessee was the partner and the said assessments have attained finality. Once the amounts found during the course of search have already been taxed in the hands of the firm, the question of taxing the very same amount in the hands of the partner does not survive. In this view of the matter, deletion of the addition in the hands of the Assessee Partner by the ITAT cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, 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