Vinod Kumar Pittie v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
13 Jul 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Vinod Kumar Pittie v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
13 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
1991-92
Outcome
Remanded
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Vinod Kumar Pittie v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2009) remanded the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.50 OF 2009
Vinod Kumar Pittie ...Petitioner.
v.
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Mumbai City-3, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents.
Mr. Deepak Trashlawala i/by Vishnu S. Hahade, advs. For the Petitioners.
Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr. P.S.Sahadevan, advs. For the Respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ.
DATED : 13th July , 2009
P.C.
1Rule. Heard forthwith.
2It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the order dated
3.2.2000 came to be passed, he has no notice of the same. It is further his
case that he was not director during the relevant years for which demand was made and that the petitioner was the director only during the period from 12.5.1996 to 3.12.1997.
3On the other hand, on behalf of the Revenue, it is pointed out that the petitioner has filed returns for the assessment year 1991-92.
We do not propose to go into controversy as in our opinion, opportunity will have to be given to the petitioner to establish his case that he was not director during the relevant years and the circumstances under which he had signed the returns as director for the years in respect of which demand is sought to be executed.
4 We do not propose to go into controversy as in our opinion, petitioner will have to give an opportunity of establishing his case. In the light of that, impugned orders dated 3.2.2000 and 21.3.2002 are set aside. Matter remanded to the respondent no.3 after giving opportunity to the petitioner to pass appropriate orders according to the law. Petitioner will have to appear before the respondent no.3 on 23[rd] July, 2009 at 11.00 a.m.. Respondent no.3 thereafter to complete the proceedings in any way not later than six months from today. In the meantime, attachment effected on the petitioner’s property to continue till further orders and for a period of four weeks after the respondent no.3 passes an order.
5Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
(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.