Wp/1500/2011 Of Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
09 Nov 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/1500/2011 Of Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
09 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/1500/2011 Of Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Decision: The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 1500 OF 2011
Mr. Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil.
... Petitioner.
V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax.
... Respondent.
Mr. S.J. Mehta with Ms. Aarti Vissanji for the Petitioner.Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
9 NOVEMBER 2011.
P.C. :-
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 30 March 2011 has been passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. The Petitioner averred that a notice was issued on 11 March 2011 to the Petitioner to submit evidence regarding the post of director held by the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims to have supplied relevant copies of the forms filed with the Registrar of Companies under a covering letter dated 18 March 2011. Thereafter, according to the Petitioner, no further hearing was held.
2.In these circumstances, since the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, we set aside the order and remit the proceedings back to the Commissioner of Income Tax for passing further orders. We clarify that we have had no occasion to consider merits of the rival contentions which would be determined upon remand. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
(A.A. Sayed, 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.