Union Of India Through Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle, Jaipur v. Shri Jugal Kishore Tatiwala, H
High Court
07 May 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Union Of India Through Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle, Jaipur v. Shri Jugal Kishore Tatiwala, H
Date of order
07 May 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Union Of India Through Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle, Jaipur v. Shri Jugal Kishore Tatiwala, H, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal under Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 8.The petition is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13693/2016
Union Of India Through Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Jugal Kishore Tatiwala, H.no. 57, Vivek Vihar, New SanganerRoad , Jaipur- 301219.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna forMr. Anil Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
07/05/2024
1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated27.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission(for short ‘the Commission’).
2.The brief facts are that Shri Jugal Kishore Tatiwala (for short‘the respondent’) was proprietor of M/s Tatiwalas and engaged inbusiness of jewellery and gem stones. The return filed for theAssessment Year 2012-13 was selected for scrutiny and thereaftersearch was carried out. Proceedings under Section 153(A) ofIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated.
3.The respondent filed a petition before the Commission andduring pendency of the proceedings, the respondent died. TheCommission vide order dated 27.08.2014 settled the matter ontotal income of Rs.3,93,51,438/-.
4.The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that theCommission erred in granting immunity from prosecution andimposition of penalty.
5.It is an undisputed fact that the tax and interest on theincome settled was deposited by the legal heirs of the respondent.
6.The Commission considering the submissions of both thesides and taking into account the death of the respondent on25.07.2014 passed impugned order. It was concluded that therewas full and true disclosure by the respondent and full co-operation was extended. The view taken by the Commission is aplausible.
7.There is no legal or factual error in the impugned order. Nocase is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
8.The petition is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Monika/Sudeepak/5
Reportable:
No
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