Wp/869/2006 Of Rafique A. Malik v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai And 2 Ors
High Court
19 Apr 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/869/2006 Of Rafique A. Malik v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai And 2 Ors
Date of order
19 Apr 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/869/2006 Of Rafique A. Malik v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai And 2 Ors, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.869 OF 2006
Rafique A. Malik .. Petitioner.
V/s.
The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Central Circle-3 & Othes .. Respondents.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the petitioner.
Mr.S.R. Chauhan with Mr.Arun D. Nagarjun for the
respondents.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2006.
DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2006.
P.C. :
Heard.
2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent,
rule is heard finally at this stage.
3. Mr.S.R. Chavan, the advocate for the revenue
submits that the certificate granted by the
Commissioner under Section 68(2) of the Voluntary
Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 is holding the
field and that the said certificate has not been
cancelled or revoked nor can it be cancelled or
revoked. He also admitted that so long as the
certificate under Section 68(2) of the Scheme holds
2
the field, the amount of voluntarily disclosed income
cannot be included in the total income of the
petitioner - assessee for any assessment year under
the Income Tax Act. If that be so, we fail to
understand the justification of notice under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. As a matter of fact, the advocate for the
revenue fairly conceded that the order passed by us
on 14th march, 2006 in writ petition No.531 of 2006
(M/s.Uma Corporation V/s. Krishna Prabhakar) is
applicable on all fours in the facts situation of the
present case.
5. Consequently, we quash and set aside the
notice dated 31st March, 2005 issued under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further notice
dated 1st March, 2006 issued under Section 143(2) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. Rule is disposed of accordingly. 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.