Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. Sh...

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel

High Court 01 Sep 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel
Date of order
01 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J C.M.No.9048 CII of 2006 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 60 days infiling the Review Application is condoned.

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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.9048 CII of 2008 and R.A No.26 CII of 2006 in I.T.A No. 32 of 2001 Date of decision : September 01, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ...... Appellant through Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate v. Sh. Sunil Kumar Goel, ...... Respondent through Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J C.M.No.9048 CII of 2006 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 60 days infiling the Review Application is condoned. C.M stands disposed of. R.A No.26 CII of 2006 This is an application for reviewing the order dated 19.1.2005whereby this Court had set aside the non-speaking order dated 2.1.1998passed by the Tribunal and remanded the case back to it for a freshadjudication. The only ground which has been urged before us, is that certainpoints were not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of R.A No.26 CII of 2006(O&M) the appeal. In our opinion, this is not a sufficient ground for reviewing theorder, the parameters of which are based on an error apparent on the face ofthe record. Consequently, the review application is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE September 01, 2008'kk' ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan