Chhattisgarh v. Assistant Commissloner Oflncome
High Court
25 Jul 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Chhattisgarh v. Assistant Commissloner Oflncome
Date of order
25 Jul 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Chhattisgarh v. Assistant Commissloner Oflncome, the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
LIJIE.HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUI|•••fts.nfCHHATTISGARH)1B8EIC
zt-BI1 Of2007.
M.C.C. No.
Dhilloii and Co.^.M/s Surtasingh
a partnership firm acti'iig tlirough it'spartner Shri Suchhasingh,son ofSurtasingh Dhillon, having of placepartner Shri Suchhasingh,son ofSurtasingh Dhillon, having of placebusiness at Titmrdih, Dufg, Tahslland District Durg, State ofand District Durg, State of
c.l-''^\^.•-"^••^^...^'s^^^^.-^^^y^.^W1-\.'^F^.--"'
Chhattisgarh.
!
VERSUS •
1,Assistant Commissloner oflncome
NO]>i-APPLICANTS•r^^y Tax, Circle Bhilai, Aaykar Bhavaii,-^^y ^xr'•y ^y^
^^y Tax, Circle Bhilai, Aaykar Bhavaii,
Civil Lines, Bhilai, State of
Chhattisgarh.
2; CommissionerofIncomeTax;Raipur, Central Revenue Building,Civil Lines, Raipiu' 492001, State ofChhattisgarh.Raipur, Central Revenue Building,Civil Lines, Raipiu' 492001, State ofChhattisgarh.
IncomeTax;
PLICATION FOR RESTORATIQN QETHISCASE.
ashok
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURM.C.C. No. 348OF 2007
AppiicantNon-applicants
M/s. Surtasingh Dhillon and Co.
VERSUS
AssistantCommissionerofIncomeTax &Another
APPLICATION FOR RESTORATiON OF THE CASE
D.B.Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri &Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ.
Present:Shri Pankaj Agrawai, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
(Passed[on][ this][ 25th][ day][ of][ Ju!y,][ 2012)]
According to the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, thesoiepartner[of][ the]partnership[firm/]applicanthaddisdon21.07.2005. Thereafter, as required, no step was taken to bringtegal heirs on record within the limitation period of 90 days. Thematter came up for hearing on 02.08.2007, none appears nor anyrepresentatlon was made on behalf of petitioner and the petltionwas dismissed for want of prosecution.
1.
2.
The application for restoring the income tax appea!, at the instanceof legai heirs, who have not yet been brought on record and theappeal stood abated automatically after compl'etion ot 9s3ciays.Thus, on account of non-filing of tne appiication within stipulatedperiod,[the][ application][ for][ restoration][ cannot][ be][ allowed.]Thus, the MCC is dismissed.
•3.
Sd/-R.S. SharmaJudge
Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge
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.
EaseValue