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

PDF · subscribers
TA/117/2008HC BombayHCBM03019166200815 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 decision was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the facts in the present appeal were identical to those in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007. The Court referred to the reasons recorded in its speaking order passed on the same day for Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for reasons that were elaborated in the aforementioned related appeals. The specific reasoning from those related appeals is not provided in this excerpt, but the outcome for this appeal is a summary dismissal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Shri Prakash Narayandas Rizwani, filed Tax Appeal No. 117 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. The appeal was against the Commissioner of Income-tax, Aurangabad, and others. The appellant is the original assessee, and the respondents are the revenue authorities. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the facts in this appeal are 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 appeal was filed challenging an order or action by the revenue authorities, though the specific order and assessment year are not detailed in this excerpt.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the facts in Tax Appeal No. 117 of 2008 are identical to those in Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007, except for the assessment year and the amount of commission. Assessee's contention: The assessee, through their learned counsel, argued that the facts of the present appeal are identical to those in two other appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 70/2007 and 73/2007), with variations only in the assessment year and the quantum of commission. The assessee implicitly seeks parity in the decision. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the facts or the merits of the appeal. The revenue was represented by the Assistant Solicitor General.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

(1) Tax Appeal No. 117 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Tax Appeal No. 117 of 2008 Shri Prakash Narayandas Rizwani, .. Appellant R/o. 37, Bhagyanagar, Nanded. (Original 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. 117 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/ta117

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →