The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrs. Hansa Motasha & Ors
High Court
13 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrs. Hansa Motasha & Ors
Date of order
13 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mrs. Hansa Motasha & Ors, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law any adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee from the paper found in the premises of the firm of the Assessee.
Decision: There is no merits in this Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.702 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ...Appellant
Vs.
Mrs. Hansa Motasha & Ors. ....Respondents
Mrs. Anuradha Mane, for the Appellant.
None for the respondents.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO &J.H. BHATIA, JJ.DATED: 13th April, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED: 13th April, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The Revenue is in appeal on the following
questions:-
"A. Whether on the facts and the
circumstances of the case and in law any
adverse inference could be drawn against the
assessee from the paper found in the
premises of the firm of the Assessee.
B. Whether the excess jewellery which has
been shown by the partners of the firm who
in fact earn the money can be bifurcated and
shown that it is for the renovation of the
house and on purchase of jewellery.
In so far as the first question is concerned, both
(-2-)
the C.I.T. (A) and ITAT have held that loose paper
was found not from the assessee, but from some other
premises of the firm where the husbands were
partners. Both the CIT (A) and ITAT have gone into
that issue and have held that the same cannot be
held against the assessee. These are purely
findings of fact.
2. In so far as jewellery is concerned, there
are again two concurrent findings of fact that the
jewellery is in terms of what has already been
explained and no jewellery was found in the course
of search. Considering that these are two
concurrent findings of fact, in our opinion, the
questions of law as framed would not arise.
3. There is no merits in this Appeal, which is
accordingly dismissed.
(J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.