High Court of Gujarat
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusKAMLESH DAMJIBHAI YADAV
- Disposal
- 46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH
Holding
The Court held that the earlier order was defective for not considering the multi‑assessee restraint order and therefore recalled it, restoring the appeal for further consideration.
Summary
The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against Kamlesh Damjibhai Yadav in Tax Appeal No. 627 of 2007, which had been decided on only two of seven questions, leaving several issues unresolved. The appellant argued that a restraint order under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued in the names of all four assessee parties, which should have extended the limitation period for the block assessment. The High Court noted that the earlier order dated 19.08.2016 had not considered this fact and therefore recalled that order, restoring the appeal for further hearing. Subsequently, the court observed that the tax effect of the appeal was less than Rs. 2 crores, invoking Circular No. 9 of 2024, and consequently disposed of the appeal on the ground of low tax effect, while allowing it to be revived if necessary. The final disposition was that the application to recall the earlier order was allowed, the appeal was restored, and then dismissed due to the low tax effect.
Issues considered
- The effect of a restraint order issued in the names of multiple assessee parties on the limitation period for block assessment under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Whether the earlier order deciding only two of the seven raised questions was valid
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 132(3)
Subjects
Tax appealRestraint orderLimitation periodSection 132(3)Recall of orderLow tax effectCircular No.9 of 2024
Judgment
C/TAXAP/627/2007 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 627 of 2007
With
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/TAX APPEAL NO. 627 of 2007
==========================================================
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
KAMLESH DAMJIBHAI YADAV
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. RUTVIJ PATEL, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 12/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Rutvij Patel
for the appellant – applicant and learned advocate
Ms.Vaibhavi Parikh for the respondent. Learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr.Rutvij Patel has submitted that he has
instructions to appear for the applicant and seeks permission
to file his appearance. Permission is granted.
ORDER IN MCA (OJ) No. 1 of 2017.
1 This application is filed with the following prayers:
“B. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to review/recall the order
dated 19.08.2016 passed in Tax Appeal No. 627 of 2007 and be
restored / recall Tax Appeal No. 627 of 2007 for further hearing.”
Page 1 of 4
C/TAXAP/627/2007 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026
2 Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Rutvij Patel
submitted that the Tax Appeal No.627 of 2007 was admitted
raising seven questions, however, the tax appeal was disposed
of by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2016 deciding only
two questions and other questions were not decided on
merits. The issue raised in question No.A was decided in
favour of the revenue and the issue raised in the form of
question No.B which was regarding the date of limitation for
completion of the block assessment was decided against the
revenue. The other questions were not decided.
3 It was pointed out that upon receipt of the certified copy
by the applicant and upon verification of the record, it
transpired that the restraint order dated 17.07.2002 passed
under Section 132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued
in name of all four persons, including the assessee and all four
assessee had been ordered not to remove or part with or
otherwise deal with the articles or things mentioned therein
without previous permission of the authorized officer. It was
pointed out that this Court held that since the restraint order
was in the name of only one assessee, the search got
concluded on 17.07.2002 for other assessee’s. It was
Page 2 of 4
C/TAXAP/627/2007 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026
therefore submitted that in view of the fact that the restraint
order was issued in the name of all assessee’s, the limitation
for passing the assessment order would get extended.
4 In view of the above facts, it was prayed that the
impugned order dated 19.08.2016 so far as the Tax Appeal
No.627 of 2007 is concerned, may be recalled.
5 Considering the above facts, it appears that the fact that
the restraint order was passed in name of all the four assessee
was not considered by this Court and therefore, by passing
the common order dated 19.08.2016, only two grounds of
appeals were decided, one of them being limitation and as the
same was decided in favour of the assessee, the other grounds
were not considered on merits.
6 In view of the above facts, we recall the order dated
19.08.2016 passed in Tax Appeal No. 627 of 2007 and restore
the Tax Appeal No.627 of 2007 to file. The application is
accordingly allowed and stands disposed of.
Page 3 of 4
C/TAXAP/627/2007 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2026
ORDER IN TAX APPEAL NO. 627 of 2007.
1 In view of the order of even date passed in MCA (OJ) No.
1 of 2017, this Tax Appeal is ordered to be restored to file.
2 Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Rutvij Patel for the
appellant submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less
than Rs.2 crores and as per the Circular No.9 of 2024 dated
17.09.2024, this Tax Appeal would not be maintainable.
3 In view of the above statement, the Tax Appeal is
disposed of on the ground of low tax effect with a liberty to
revive in case of difficulty.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIMAL
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/06/2026 17:58:30
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Tax appeal"Sign in to search