SUSHILABEN G.GUNDESHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/8349/2005HC BombayHCBM07036560200511 September 2006Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had two prayers in the writ petition. Regarding the first prayer, to challenge the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) decision of 23rd February 1999, the petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would pursue a miscellaneous application filed for that purpose. Regarding the second prayer, to challenge the assessment order confirmed by the ITAT on 14th February 2005, the counsel stated that the petitioner, if advised, might file an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Given these statements, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the writ petition. The Court allowed the withdrawal. No decision was made on the merits of either the KVSS decision or the assessment order. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sushilaben G. Gundesha, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging two matters. The first was a decision under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS), 1998, rendered on 23rd February 1999. The second was an income tax assessment made on 15th February 1998. The petitioner had appealed the assessment up to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which confirmed the assessment on 14th February 2005. For the KVSS decision, the petitioner had filed a miscellaneous application. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner would pursue the remedy for the KVSS decision and, if advised, might file an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the decision under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, rendered on 23rd February 1999, through this writ petition? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the income tax assessment made on 15th February 1998, which was confirmed by the ITAT on 14th February 2005, through this writ petition? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner's counsel indicated that the petitioner would pursue a separate miscellaneous application for the KVSS decision and, if advised, would file an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment order confirmed by the ITAT. Therefore, the petitioner sought to withdraw the present writ petition. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the respondents (Revenue) in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8349 OF 2005 Sushilaben G. Gundesha .. Petitioner. V/s. The Commissioner of Income-tax and others .. Respondents. Mr.M.K. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr.A.M. Kotangale for the respondents. CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2006. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Kulkarni in support of this petition. Mr.Kotangale appears for the respondents. 2. The petition has two prayers. The first prayer is to challenge the decision under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. That decision was rendered way back on 23rd February, 1999. The second prayer is to challenge the assessment of the petitioner made on 15th February, 1998. As far as that assessment is concerned, the petitioner carried matter upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal has confirmed the assessment on 14th February, 2005. 3. As far as the KVSS decision is concerned, the

2 petitioner has filed miscellaneous application. Mr.Kulkarni states that the petitioner will pursue that remedy. As far as the assessment is concerned, he makes a further statement that the petitioner, if so advised, may file an appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. He, therefore, seeks to withdraw the petition. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →