Wp/15216/2023 Of B K Developers v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 8-1, Pune
High Court
12 Dec 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/15216/2023 Of B K Developers v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 8-1, Pune
Date of order
12 Dec 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/15216/2023 Of B K Developers v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 8-1, Pune, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: CIT(A) is quite reasoned and requires no interference.” The ITATneed not have reproduced the entire paragraph 10 of the order of CIT(A).The specific reference to paragraph in the order of CIT(A) itself is a reasonenough to let us know why the ITAT dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2023.12.1316:26:29+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15216 OF 2023
B. K. Developers Through Its PartnerMr. Khemchand Uttamchand Bhojwani
….Petitioner
V/s.
The Income Tax Officer Ward 8-1, Pune & Ors ....Respondents
----
Ms Vidhi Punmiya a/w Mr. Sanket Bora i/b SPCM Legal for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED : 12[th] DECEMBER 2023
P.C. :
1Petitioner is impugning an order dated 27[th] March 2023 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing petitioner’s appeal on theground that the impugned order was passed on very first date of hearingand hence in violation of principles of natural justice. We fail to understandhow disposing the matter on the first date of hearing would amount tobreaching the principles of natural justice.
2The other ground raised is, it is a non speaking order. Counselsubmitted that the findings does not give reasons why the appeal wasdismissed. In our view, paragraph 5 of the impugned order gives the reasonwhere it says “ I have carefully gone through the finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) vide para 10 of his order, on mere perusal of the said findings, itwould be clear that the appellant had not offered any explanation insupport of the cash deposits even during the course of proceedings before
the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order of
the ld. CIT(A) is quite reasoned and requires no interference.” The ITATneed not have reproduced the entire paragraph 10 of the order of CIT(A).The specific reference to paragraph in the order of CIT(A) itself is a reasonenough to let us know why the ITAT dismissed the appeal.
3In the circumstances, we see no reason to exercise our jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition dismissed.
4Of course, petitioner may exercise its alternate remedy by filing anappeal against the order of ITAT.
(Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, 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.