PRAKASH NARYANDAS RIZWANI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AURANGABAD AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
TA/112/2008HC BombayHCBM03019175200815 February 2012Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.B.DESHMUKH,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE D. G. KARNIK2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dismissed the appeal summarily. The Court's decision was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts in Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2008 were identical to those in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007, with the only variations being the assessment year and the amount of commission. Consequently, the Court applied the reasoning from its speaking order passed on the same day in Tax Appeal No. 70/2007 and 73/2007 to dispose of the present appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Shri Prakash Narayandas Rizwani, an individual businessman, filed Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appeal was against the order passed by the Income-tax authorities (Commissioner of Income-tax, Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Income-tax Officer). The appellant stated that the facts in this appeal were identical to those in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007, with the only differences being the assessment year and the amount of commission in dispute. The respondents were the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, relating to a different assessment year and a different amount of commission, presents facts identical to those in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007, thereby warranting a similar disposal. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through their learned counsel, argued that the facts in the present appeal are identical to those in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007, except for the assessment year and the amount of commission. This implies an argument that the legal principles and outcome should be consistent with the aforementioned appeals. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. The Assistant Solicitor General appeared for the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2008 Shri Prakash Narayandas Rizwani, Age : 39 years, .. Appellant Occupation : Business, (Original R/o. 37, Bhagyanagar, Nanded. assessee) versus 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad, Pune Road, Aurangabad. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, .. Respondents Cir. 3(2), Nanded. (Original respondents) 3. Income-tax Officer, Ward 3(6), Nanded. ....................... Mr. M.K. Kulkarni, Advocate, with Mr. R.R. Chandak, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1 to 3. ........................

(2) Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2008 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY 2012 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that the facts in this appeal are identical with the facts in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007, except that the present Appeal relates to the different assessment year and different amount of commission. 2. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the speaking order passed today in Tax Appeal No. 70/2007 and 73/2007, present Appeal is also dismissed summarily.

( S.B. DESHMUKH ) ( D.G. KARNIK ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/ta112

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →