Case Law Details
Case Name : Rajiv Yashwant Bhale Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income (Bombay High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Bombay High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
There was an attachment levied and the petitioner apprehended that if the time to make payment expires, the auction may follow. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was to extend the time to make payment in installments and if that had been granted, nothing could have been done by the Revenue pursuant to the attachment. If the time was extended and the payment was made, then, the sale could not have taken place at all. In these circumstances, based on the petitioner’s request, no steps were taken. Secondly and more importantly, the Settlement Commissio
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
OFFHAND
It is noted that, the Judgment of the Bom, HC, as reported HEREIN, – in Rajiv Yashwant Bhale’ case- is prima facie on the same question of law, though on a different factual matrix, also decided in taxpayer’ favour, recently so, as by the SC in SV Gopal Rao’s case (reported elsewhere)
While on the first blush, the fact that it is so , may not at all be clear by a simple reading of he cited HC Judgment; however, the extract below, is seen to provide sufficient clarity:
“45. To interpret Rule 68 B of the Second Schedule to the IT Act in the above manner would amount to reading of the words “part of” or “portion of” before the phrase “order becoming conclusive” into the said Rule 68B. This is not permitted in the garb of interpretation.”
On that premise, the point of issue, which is a pure and simple but identical “question of law”, within its legal connotation, in both the referred cases, it may be expected , and hoped, with no further procrastination /prolongation, that the SC Judgment in Gopal Rao’s case will be conceded to be a binding ‘precedent’, hence to be followed, in all other cases, including in the Bhale’s case, regardless of the varying factual matrix in a case to case basis, -wherever/ at whatever stage, the same question of law is pending disposal.
It may be worth waiting for, but keeping a close watch, on further developments , in the near future !