Wp/3138/2004 Of Rasiklal A.sanghvi v. Commissioner Of Income-Taxand Ors
High Court
14 Dec 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/3138/2004 Of Rasiklal A.sanghvi v. Commissioner Of Income-Taxand Ors
Date of order
14 Dec 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/3138/2004 Of Rasiklal A.sanghvi v. Commissioner Of Income-Taxand Ors, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO.3138 OF 2004
Rasiklal A. Sanghvi
v/s.
The Commissioner of Income-tax,Mumbai-XVI, Mumbai & ors.
.. Petitioner
.. Respondents
Mr.P.R.Toprani for petitioner.
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Mr.R.Asokan i/by
Mr.T.C.Kaushik for respondents.
CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED:14thDecember, 2004
P.C.
Heard.
2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.
3. The advocate on record for the revenue waives
service.
4. Rule is treated on board for final hearing at
this stage.
5. Having considered the available material andall the aspects, we are of the view that theapplication made by the petitioner seekingextension under section 80HHC (2)(a) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 for realisation of the outstanding
export proceeds requires reconsideration by theCommissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-XVI, Mumbai. Itis so because it is apparent from the particularsavailable on record that the payment has beenreceived though belatedly from the concerned party.The petitioner in the application seeking extensionunder section 80HHC (2)(a) for realisation of theoutstanding export proceeds set out the ground thatdue to poor financial condition of the purchaser,he was unable to bring the convertible foreignexchange within time. The fact that the paymenthas been received suggests that it was beyond thecontrol of the petitioner in realising the exportproceeds within time. We are of the view that thematter requires reconsideration by the
Commissioner.
6. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 16thMarch, 2004 impugned in the present writ petitionand direct the Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai-XVI, Mumbai to reconsider the petitioner’sapplication seeking extension under section 80HHC(2)(a) in accordance with law. Liberty to thepetitioner to apply to the concerned assessingofficer for revocation of the notice under section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17th March,
2004.
7. Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No
costs.
(R.M.LODHA, 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.