Wp/105/2005 Of M/S. K. Girdharlal v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax City-Xvi, Mumbai
High Court
27 Jan 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/105/2005 Of M/S. K. Girdharlal v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax City-Xvi, Mumbai
Date of order
27 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/105/2005 Of M/S. K. Girdharlal v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax City-Xvi, Mumbai, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
-= : 1 : =-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.105 OF 2005
ORDINARY
WRIT PETITON NO.105 OF 2005
M/s.K. Girdhlal ..Petitioner.
V/s.
Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr.S.J. Mehta for petitioner.
Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with S.V.Bharucha for
respondents.
CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2005.
DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2005.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith.
3. Rule is taken on board for final hearing at
this stage.
4. The advocate on record for the revenue waives
service.
-= : 2 : =-
5. Having considered the available material and
all the aspects, we are of the view that the application
made by the petitioner seeking extention under section
80HHC (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for realisation
of outstanding export proceeds require reconsideration by
the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI, Mumbai.
It is so because it is apparent from the particulars
available on record that the payment has been received,
though belatedly, from the concerned parties. The
petitioner in the application is seeking extention under
section 80 HHC (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act for
realisation of outstanding export proceeds set out the
grounds that (a) The South East Asian and Japanese
Currency crisis, in its aftermath has resulted in erosion
of fortunes leading to widespread defaults by businessmen
there. In turn the jewellery and diamond trade across the
world is unable to realize its dues and / or is saddled
with goods returned by parties and faces a tremendous
payment crisis; (b) Worldwide recession and general
slackness in the demand for jewellery (and percolating to
diamonds) for the last two and a half years; (c) Slow
moving stocks piled over with customers abroad; (d)
Difficulty in realization of sale proceeds by customers
abroad; (e) Reduction in bank credit finance the world
over and (f) Uncertain economic environment caused by
general trade depression in most of the diamond consuming
-= : 3 : =-
countries. The Commissioner seems to have overstretched
the matter by observing that the assessee ought to have
established with evidence that he was unable to bring the
convertible foreign exchange for the reasons beyond
control. The assessee’s grounds set out above suggest
that it was beyond his control. We are of the view that
the matter requires reconsideration by the Commissioner.
6. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 12th
March, 2004 impugned in the present writ petition and
direct the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI,
Mumbai to reconsider the petitioner’s application dated
30th September, 1997 seeking extention under section 80
HHC (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act in accordance with law.
7. In the light of our above order, the Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax will decide the notice under
section 148 of the Income Tax Act and pass the appropriate
order on the objections raised by the assessee regarding
reopening of the assessment.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
-= : 4 : =-
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.