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under section 179 of the Act has now been withdrawn,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.)
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.