PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 19 MUMBAI vs AVINASH B. JAISING

Judgment text excerpt

3. ITXA 1581-22.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1581 OF 2022 Digitally signed by LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2025.12.10 12:13:50 +0530 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 Mumbai ...Appellant Versus Avinash B. Jaising ...Respondent _______ Mr. Mamta Olme for the Appellant. Mr. Devendra Jain a/w Saukhya Lakade i/b. Radha Halbe for Respondent. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 28th NOVEMBER 2025 Oral Judgment (Per Aarti Sathe, J.) :- 1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the order dated 19th March 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “ITAT”) rejecting the Revenue’s Appeal, filed against an order dated 15th February 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) for the block period 1st April 1989 to 16th November 1999. By such order, the ITAT rejected the Revenue’s Appeal and upheld the order of the CIT(A) considering that in the case of the father and the brother of the Respondent-Assessee i.e. Mr. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Mr. Ravi Jaising, on similar facts, the additions have been deleted by the CIT(A) and further those orders remained unchallenged by the Revenue. The assessment years in question is a block assessment period pertaining to 1 st April 1989 to 16th November 1999. 2. By the present Appeal the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law:- Page 1 of 10 Laxmi 3. ITXA 1581-22.DOC “a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not subst