Cwp/22741/2022 Of Inderjit Singh And Anr v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
High Court
29 Sep 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Cwp/22741/2022 Of Inderjit Singh And Anr v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
Date of order
29 Sep 2022
Assessment year(s)
2005-06, 2011-12
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Cwp/22741/2022 Of Inderjit Singh And Anr v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
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 HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
Inderjit Singh Brar and another
CWP-22741-2022 (O&M)Date of decision: 29.09.202
Petitioners
VeTSUS
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRKJINDER SINGH DHINDSAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICK DERBEPAK MANCHAND
Present: Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel forrespondents-Income Tax Department
//////
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (QRAL)
The instant writ petition has been filed raising a two foldprayer; (i) a mandamus is sought directing the respondents to release thejewellery that was seized on 03.03.2011 pursuant to a search exerciseconducted on the lockers maintained by the petitioners; (11) directions arealso sought for release of the refund that is due to petitioner No.1 pursuantto the appellate orders relating to the search period of assessment year 2005-06 and assessment year 2011-12 alongwith applicable interest.
Since an advance copy of the writ petition already stood servedupon the respondents, Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counselfor respondents has entered appearance and makes a statement that theinstant writ petition itself would be treated as a representation and a finaldecision with regard to the prayers contained therein would be taken in
accordance with law and within a period of 10 weeks from today.
CW P-22741-2022 (O&M
Statement is accepted.
No further directions are required to be passed.
It is clarified that we have not examined the issue on merits.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)JUDGE29.99.2022shweta6hether speaking/reasoned?Yes/NoWhether Reportable?Yes/No.
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.