Sanjeevkumar Biharilal Kabra v. UOI (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench)
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
No assessment order under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. The Department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 A or 143(3). The Department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of…
Result: Time for payment extended to30 June 2022; Revenue permitted to seek review/modification with calculations; no fresh merits adjudication in this order. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: Sec 153A 143(3) 132B(4) 240 244-A
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- No assessment order under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. The Department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 A or 143(3). The Department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of…
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
11. Lashika Motors, Through its- Partner, Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra, Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax Consultant, R/o at “Gopi” Opp. Amit Apartment, Sardar Patel Road, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna-431203. ..Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
10. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola. ..Respondents … Mr. Raviraj R. Chandak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. B. Gaikwad, ASG for Respondent No.1. Mr. Alok sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 10. …
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks clarification of the order, more particularly in so far as directions issued in paragraph no.43 (A).
3. Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the chart submitted by the petitioners comprising of two parts. According to the said chart, the claim of the petitioners is in sum of Rs.5,99,780/- and also Rs.9,56,140/-. However, in the order passed by this Court, this Court has considered the direction
4. We accordingly clarify that, the respondent-revenue would be also liable to pay Rs.9,56,140/- to the petitioner in addition to Rs.5,99,780/-.
Appellant / assessee submissions
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks clarification of the order, more particularly in so far as directions issued in paragraph no.43 (A).
3. Mr. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the chart submitted by the petitioners comprising of two parts. According to the said chart, the claim of the petitioners is in sum of Rs.5,99,780/- and also Rs.9,56,140/-. However, in the order passed by this Court, this Court has considered the direction
Revenue / respondent submissions
5. Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department on the other hand submitted the chart annexed by the petitioners claiming sum of Rs.5,99,780/- and Rs.9,56,140/- indicated highly inflated amount and is disputed by the Department. He tendered a separate chart dated 26.04.2022 sent by the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Jalna and would submit that, according to the calculation of the respondents, the petitioners would be entitled to recover only sum of Rs.1,30,405/- and 1,45,740/- and not sums as claimed as per chart submitted before this Court and payable as per order passed by this Court.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
The result is recorded as Time for payment extended to30 June 2022; Revenue permitted to seek review/modification with calculations; no fresh merits adjudication in this order. The exact relief and qualifications are controlled by the final operative paragraphs of the packaged judgment.
Source and subsequent history
Primary record: Official primary source search pending
Later-history status: Review / appeal / SLP status: check pending
High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses No assessment order under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. The Department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 A or 143(3). The Department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with no assessment order under section 153-a of the act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the income tax act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. the department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 a or 143(3). the department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under section 132-b(4) of the act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending |
| Repository release | Published |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Sanjeevkumar Biharilal Kabra v. UOI (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench)?
No assessment order under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. The Department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 A or 143(3). The Department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of…
Which facts matter most?
11. Lashika Motors, Through its- Partner, Sanjeevkumar S/o Biharilal Kabra, Age: 65 years, Occu: Tax Consultant, R/o at “Gopi” Opp. Amit Apartment, Sardar Patel Road, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna-431203. ..Petitioners Versus 1. The Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
What did the Bombay High Court decide?
Time for payment extended to30 June 2022; Revenue permitted to seek review/modification with calculations; no fresh merits adjudication in this order
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses No assessment order under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. The Department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 A or 143(3). The Department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
Sec 153A 143(3) 132B(4) 240 244-A
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - No assessment order under Section 153-A of the Act, 1961, the amount seized can not be retained there is no provision in the Income Tax Act regarding the payment of interest as well as compensatory interest. The Department cannot deliberately delay the payment of the amount due payable with interest from the date of the assessment order passed u/s 153 A or 143(3). The Department/respondents are directed to pay interest by way of compensation/ damages for the period from 03.03.2018 to 23.12.2019 as prayed under Section 132-B(4) of the Act, 1961 at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- Sec 153A 143(3) 132B(4) 240 244-A - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. ITAT - Bombay High Court
- Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Trust v. ITO(E) - ITAT Mumbai
- Annamma Samkutty v. ITO - ITAT Pune
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Pr. CIT (Central)-4 v. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Partly allowed
- Pr. CIT (Central)-1 v. Surendra L. Hiranandani - Dismissed
Related Finin2min resources
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Published
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Sections and statute
The numbered references below belong to the statutes and versions identified in this judgment. They are citation labels, not a crosswalk to same-number sections of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Section 153Section 132