Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others
High Court
14 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others
Date of order
14 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2792 OF 2010WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO.2793 OF 2010
Tilaknagar Industries Limited
Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax & others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr.S.E. Dastoor, Senior Counsel with Mr.Madhur Agarwal i/by Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the petitioner.Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the respondents.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 14[th] December, 2010.
1.These two petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whereby the appeals filed by the petitioner against the regular assessment orders have been dismissed on the ground that the appeal memo was not signed by the authorized officer of the petitioner – company.
2.This Court in the case of Prime Securities Limited V/s. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) and Commissioner of Customs V/s. Cannon Shipping Company Private Limited reported in 250 ITR 347 has held that signing of the appeal memo by a person not authorized is only an irregularity and the same can be rectified. Although, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has tried to distinguish the judgment of this Court in the case of Prime Securities Limited
(Supra), we see no merit in such distinction sought to be made. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the appeals be remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for decision on merits in accordance with law.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessing officer has called upon the petitioner to pay the amount found to be due and payable under the assessment order by 17[th] December 2010, without considering the stay application filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would make a fresh application for stay before the assessing officer within one week from today. Since the appeals filed by the petitioner are restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessing officer is directed not to enforce the demand till the petitioner’s application for stay is decided and if the order is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be enforced for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said order.
4.The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
(R.M. Savant, 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.