Case LawHigh Court › Wp/1964/2009 Of Chandrakant P. Mirant v....

Wp/1964/2009 Of Chandrakant P. Mirant v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Ors

High Court 12 Oct 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/1964/2009 Of Chandrakant P. Mirant v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Ors
Date of order
12 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/1964/2009 Of Chandrakant P. Mirant v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And 2 Ors, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: They are irrespective as to whether the party has accepted with the order of assessment or not accepted it.

Decision: In the light of that the impugned order is set aside.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1964 OF 2009 Mr. Chandrakant P. Mirani....Petitioner Vs, Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.....Respondents Mr.Ashok Kotangale with Mr. Arun D. Nagarjun, for the PetitionersMr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner had applied under Section 273A of the Income Tax Act for waiver of interest and penalty. That has been rejected by order dated 16[th] February, 2009. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition. 2.On behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel submits that the sole reason given by the Authority in dismissing the application is that the assessment had become final and they had not been challenged and if challenged no appeal was preferred. We have perused the impugned order and also considered the reasons given in paragraph 7. The Commissioner has proceeded on the footing that in some cases appeals were filed against the order of C.I.T. (A) and in some other matters Appeals were dismissed and no Appeals were preferred against those orders. 3.Under Section 273A the tests are entirely different. They are irrespective as to whether the party has accepted with the order of assessment or not accepted it. The learned Commissioner appears not to have directed himself to the predicates required for consideration of application under Section 273A(1) and 273(A)(4) of the Income Tax Act. In the light of that the impugned order is set aside. The learned Commissioner is directed to consider the petitioner’s application afresh and pass appropriate orders according to law. Rule made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan