Wp/5836/2006 Of Prakash Gulabchand Goyal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another
High Court
17 Jun 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Wp/5836/2006 Of Prakash Gulabchand Goyal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another
Date of order
17 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/5836/2006 Of Prakash Gulabchand Goyal v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5836/2006(Prakash Gulabchand Goyal vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax and another)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directionsCourt's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders.
Shri N.S.Bhattad, Adv. for the petitioner,Shri Anand Parchure, Adv., for R-1 & 2
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJDATED : 17th JUNE, 2008.
Heard counsel for the parties.
We find merits in the preliminary objection raised onbehalf of the respondents that the petitioner has failed to availstatutory efficacious remedy available against the impugneddecision dated 24[th]March, 2006, passed by the appellateTribunal.
To get over this position, counsel for the petitionerwould contend that the petitioner has chosen to file writ petitionin view of the observations made in the impugned order that theissue is debatable.We find no merits in this submission.Inasmuch as the order in question deals with the issue on meritsin accordance with law and the appeal preferred before theappellant Tribunal has not been dismissed otherwise.
Havingrealizedthisposition,counselforthepetitioner prays that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw thispetition with liberty to pursue statutory remedy by way of appeal
against the order of the Tribunal.
We accede to that request while making it clear thatthis liberty is not an expression of opinion on the issue of appealbeing barred by limitation.
While parting, we may only place on record that theorder impugned in this writ petition is dated 24[th]March, 2006,whereas writ petition has been filed on 12[th]September, 2006. Itis not necessary for us to enter into the controversy as to whetherthe present petition has been filed only with a view to get overthe objection regarding appeal being barred by limitation.Allthese questions will have to be considered in the appropriate casetaken out by the petitioner as and when the occasion arise.
Petition disposed of as withdrawn.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Rvjalit
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.