In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -24 Mumbai v. Shri Parasmal T. Jain, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. :- 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in quashing the block assessment order passed under section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Act is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 5589 of 2010
The Commissioner of Income-tax -24 Mumbai
... Appellant.
Versus
Shri Parasmal T. Jain
... Respondent.
Mr Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.DATE : 28[th] November,2011.
P.C. :-
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was justified in quashing the block assessment order passed under section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Act is the question raised in this appeal. The ITAT by relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Mrs Sandhya P. Naik reported in 253 ITR 534 and an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Plastika Enterprises Tax Appeal No.1211/2008 dated 15[th ]December, 2008 has held that the block assessment passed beyond time after the last panchnama was bad in law and cannot be sustained. Since the decision of the Tribunal is based on the decisions of this Court, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R.Joshi,J)
(J.P.Devadhar,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.