The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Thane… v. Arif Razak Memon
High Court
16 Jun 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Thane… v. Arif Razak Memon
Date of order
16 Jun 2015
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Thane… v. Arif Razak Memon, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: By the impugned order the Tribunal restored the matters in controversy to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
bsb 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1668 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Thane… Appellant
v/s
Arif Razak Memon
… Respondent
Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.
Ms.Asifa Khan i/by Niraj Punamiya for the respondent.
CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2015
P.C.:
This appeal by the revenue challenges the order dated 1 March 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. By the impugned order the Tribunal restored the matters in controversy to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
2We find that the Tribunal passed the impugned order of restoring the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration at the instance of the revenue. In spite of the above, the present appeal has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal restoring the controversy to the Assessing Officer for fresh
bsb 2
adjudication. We are unable to understand how the revenue could be aggrieved by a direction of the Tribunal obtained on its specific prayer. Thus no substantial question of law in this appeal arises for our consideration.
3Ms.Asifa Khan appearing for the respondent-assessee points out that consequent to the impugned order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer has passed a fresh order on 16 January 2015. In the circumstances, the appeal itself become infructuous. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
( N. M. JAMDAR, J. ) ( M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.