Case LawHigh Court › Wp/2525/2008 Of Rajeev Mahendra Mehta v....

Wp/2525/2008 Of Rajeev Mahendra Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central Circle 17 And 28 And 2 Others

High Court 24 Nov 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/2525/2008 Of Rajeev Mahendra Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central Circle 17 And 28 And 2 Others
Date of order
24 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/2525/2008 Of Rajeev Mahendra Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central Circle 17 And 28 And 2 Others, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Considering the said fact, the petition is allowed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2525 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2525 OF 2008 Shri Rajeev Mahendra Mehta ..Petitioner. V/s. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Jitendra Jain with P.C.Tripathi i/b. Raj Darak for petitioner. Mr.Vimal Gupta withMs. Devki Iyer for respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. 2. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 3rd March, 2008, which is annexure A to the petition. The said order is passed under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by which the Director of the Company is made personally liable for payment of the outstanding taxes of the petitioner Company. The grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned order - = : 2 : = - no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The impugned order is, therefore, contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the department is withdrawing the aforesaid impugned order with a view to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioner. Considering the said fact, the petition is allowed. Since the impugned order passed under section 179 of the Act has now been withdrawn, it is not to be enforced against the petitioner. 3. It is clarified that we have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the order and the department may pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner in connection with the subject matter. 4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. (P.B.MAJMUDAR (P.B.MAJMUDARJ.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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