Case Law › High Court › Baljit Singh Malik v. Deputy Commissione...

Baljit Singh Malik v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, & Anr

High Court 28 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

28 Jul 2017

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

Case summary

In Baljit Singh Malik v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, & Anr, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In view of the above, the petition having abated, is dismissed as such.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5 + W.P.(C) 11784/2016 BALJIT SINGH MALIK ..... Petitioner Through: Ms Kavita Jha and Mr Aditya Vohra, Advocates versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, & ANR ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R% 28.07.2017 CM 46481/2016 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 11784/2016 & CM 46480/2016 (stay) 2. It was noted by this Court in the previous order dated 21[st] March, 2017 that the Petitioner had expired on 18[th] February, 2017. Therefore, it was incumbent for the Legal Representatives (‘LRs)’of the Petitioner to be brought on record. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that they have no instructions regarding substitution of the Petitioner by his LRs. 4. In view of the above, the petition having abated, is dismissed as such. S.MURALIDHAR, J JULY 28, 2017 rd PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.