2008-VIL-573-BOM-DT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ITA No. (LODGING) NO. 994 OF 2008
Date: 09.09.2008
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10, MUMBAI
Vs
MS. MALVIKA ARUN SOMAIYA
For the Appellant: Suresh Kumar
for the Respondent: R. Kurlidhar and Dhavik Manek
BENCH
SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ AND A.P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
JUDGMENT
1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. While challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 27-9-2007, it is contended that the Assessee having not filed any fresh returns in response to the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal erred in holding that notice under section 143(3)(2) ought to have been served upon the assessee before taking any further proceedings and on this basis question of law raised is that the Tribunal has erred in interpreting section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and has incorrectly come to the conclusion that the order of aassessment was in violation of the statutory provisions.
3. In our view, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not call for any interference in face of the judgment of this Court in the case of CWT v. HUF of H. H. Late J. M. Scindia [2008] 174 Taxman 1 and the judgment of the Rajasthan Court in the case of Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 1091. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.