Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Smt. Shreenbai

Cit vs Smt. Shreenbai

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 24, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512698

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Appeal No. 2 of 2003 24 June 2003
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: R.L. Jain, for the Revenue In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench Deepak Verma & S.K. Seth, JJ. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate R.L. Jain, <i>for the Revenue</i>

Respondent

Smt. Shreenbai

Legal References

Reported In
[2004]134TAXMAN681(MP)

Excerpt

counsels: r.l. jain, for the revenue in the high court of madhya pradesh, indore bench deepak verma & s.k. seth, jj. - heard on admission.2. this is an appeal under section 260a of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') at the instance of the revenue against the order dated 27-3-2002 passed by the income tax tribunal, indore bench, indore, whereby the application preferred by respondent-assessee under section 254(2) of the act, has been allowed.3. learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that this course amounts to reviewing the earlier order which is not permissible under the law. reliance has been placed on a judgment of this high court dr. hukumchand maroti v. cit : [2002]254itr602(mp) . after having gone through the said judgment, we are of the opinion that it is not applicable to the facts of that instant case. in fact, in the present case a finding in favour the. respondent-assessee was already recorded in the main order passed by the tribunal on 13-7-2001. the said main order passed by the tribunal on 13-7-2001 was not challenged by the revenue at any stage. in fact, the tribunal has already recorded a finding against the revenue but the operative part of the order was not detailed due to bona fide mistake. by the impugned order the operative part of the earlier order has been clarified. against such an order we find that no appeal would be maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved in the said appeal.4. accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in limine.

Full Judgment

Heard on admission.

2. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the revenue against the order dated 27-3-2002 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, whereby the application preferred by respondent-assessee under section 254(2) of the Act, has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that this course amounts to reviewing the earlier order which is not permissible under the law. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this High Court Dr. Hukumchand Maroti v. CIT : [2002]254ITR602(MP) . After having gone through the said judgment, we are of the opinion that it is not applicable to the facts of that instant case. In fact, in the present case a finding in favour the. respondent-assessee was already recorded in the main order passed by the Tribunal on 13-7-2001. The said main order passed by the Tribunal on 13-7-2001 was not challenged by the revenue at any stage. In fact, the Tribunal has already recorded a finding against the revenue but the operative part of the order was not detailed due to bona fide mistake. By the impugned order the operative part of the earlier order has been clarified. Against such an order we find that no appeal would be maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved in the said appeal.

4. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial