C.I.T-II v. Pravin M Dugad
[Citation -2014-LL-1008-29]

Citation 2014-LL-1008-29
Appellant Name C.I.T-II
Respondent Name Pravin M Dugad
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 08/10/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: On 27th April, 2012, the following order was passed by this Court: Issue notice as to why the matter should not be remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration as the impugned order lacks clarity. We are of the view that the facts of the case and also the issues that have been raised need to be discussed by the High Court. Since none of the facts or the issues have been discussed by Signature Not Verified the High Court, it would be appropriate if the order is set aside Digitally signed by Meenakshi Kohli Date: 2014.10.11 07:41:53 IST Reason: and the matters are sent back to the High Court for fresh 1 consideration on merits. The appeals are allowed keeping all the issues open for adjudication by the High Court. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in terms of the Signed Order. COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Signed Order is placed on the file 3.


IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9358 of 2014 [@ SLP (C) No. 14763 of 2012] C.I.T-II Appellant(s) VERSUS PRAVIN M DUGAD Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9359 of 2014 [@ SLP (C) No. 19979 of 2012] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9360 of 2014 [@ SLP(C) No. 19980 of 2012] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9361 of 2014 [@ SLP (C) No. 34557 of 2012] O R D E R Leave granted. On 27th April, 2012, following order was passed by this Court: Issue notice as to why matter should not be remitted to High Court for de novo consideration as impugned order lacks clarity. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. We have heard learned counsel for parties for quite some time. We are of view that facts of case and also issues that have been raised need to be discussed by High Court. Since none of facts or issues have been discussed by Signature Not Verified High Court, it would be appropriate if order is set aside Digitally signed by Meenakshi Kohli Date: 2014.10.11 07:41:53 IST Reason: and matters are sent back to High Court for fresh 1 consideration on merits. We do so accordingly. appeals are allowed keeping all issues open for adjudication by High Court. ....................J. [Madan B. Lokur] ....................J. [C. Nagappan] NEW DELHI OCTOBER 08, 2014 2 ITEM NO.58 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14763/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/09/2011 in ITA No. 727/2008 passed by High Court Of Bombay) C.I.T-II Petitioner(s) VERSUS PRAVIN M DUGAD Respondent(s) (With office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 19979/2012 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19980/2012 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 34557/2012 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and Office Report) Date : 08/10/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Mr. R.P. Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. A.K. Srivastav, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Purnima Bhat, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Sethi, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Hardikar, Adv. Mr. A.T. Panda, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER Leave granted. appeals are allowed in terms of Signed Order. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed Order is placed on file] 3 C.I.T-II v. Pravin M Dugad
Report Error