Cwp/25125/2022 Of Manohar Singh Nagi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Batala And Others
High Court
19 Dec 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
Cwp/25125/2022 Of Manohar Singh Nagi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Batala And Others
Date of order
19 Dec 2022
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Cwp/25125/2022 Of Manohar Singh Nagi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Batala And Others, 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
CWP-25125-2022 (O&M)Date of decision: 19.12.2022
MANQOHAR SINGH NAG
Petitioner.
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BATALA AND OTHERS
....Respondents,
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TBJINDER SINGH DHINDSHON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERR
Present:-Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counselfor respondents.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL).
Instant petition raised a short prayer for issuance of directionsto the 3[rd]respondent to take a final decision on an appeal dated 20.04.2022(Annexure P-4) that had been preferred by the petitioner/assessee against theassessment order dated 26.03.2022 pertaining to assessment year 2017-18.
On a previous date of hearing, Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr.Standing Counsel had been served with a copy of the petition and wasrequested to complete instructions. Counsel for revenue/respondents duringthe course of hearing makes a statement that she has instructions to theeffect that the appeal preferred by the petitioner/assessee would beadjudicated upon on merits finally within a period of six months from todayand till that time no coercive steps would be initiated.
Statement is accepted,
No further directions are required to be passed.
Petition is disposed of,
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)JUDGE
19.12.2022shweta
(SANJIV BERRY)JUDGE
Whether 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.