The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-22….Appellantv/S.shri. Nemchand v. Sandeep K. Shinde, Jj
High Court
13 Aug 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-22….Appellantv/S.shri. Nemchand v. Sandeep K. Shinde, Jj
Date of order
13 Aug 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-22….Appellantv/S.shri. Nemchand v. Sandeep K. Shinde, Jj, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.On 23[rd] April, 2009 this appeal was admitted onthe following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was justifiedin holding that the assessment was barred bylimitation for want of issuance of notice u/s.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Rane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-22….AppellantV/s.Shri. Nemchand V. Cheda….Respondent
….Respondent
* * * * *
Mr. N.A. Kazi, Advocate for the appellant.
Coram : M.S. Sanklecha, &
Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ.
Monday, 13th August, 2018.
P.C. :
1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-
Tax Act challenges the order of the Tribunal dated 30[th]June, 2018.
2.On 23[rd] April, 2009 this appeal was admitted onthe following substantial question of law :
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was justifiedin holding that the assessment was barred bylimitation for want of issuance of notice u/s.
NeetaShaileshSawant
143(2) within the stipulated time, when thenotice u/s. 143(2) has not relevance in theblock assessment proceedings.”
2. Mr. Kazi, Learned Counsel appearing for theappellant, Revenue very fairly states that the issue raisedherein stands concluded against the appellant-Revenueand in favour of the respondent-assessee in view of thedecision of the Supreme Court in theAssistantCommissioner of Income-Tax V/s. Hotel Blue Moon,321 ITR 362. In the above, the substantial question oflaw is answered in favour of the respondent-assessee andagainst the appellant-Revenue.
3. Appeal dismissed.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J)
Digitally signedby NeetaShailesh SawantDate: 2018.08.1611:48:28 +0530
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.
EaseValue