Case Law › High Court › Gian Chand v. The Chief Commissioner Of...

Gian Chand v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh And Another

High Court 24 Jul 2014 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · phhc

Parties

Date of order

24 Jul 2014

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In Gian Chand v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh And Another, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 276C case law →

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7040 of 2000 Decided on : 24.07.2014 Gian Chand . . . Petitioner Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH PRESENT: Mr. K.L. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has expired and by virtue of his demise, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to accept the application of the petitioner under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for compounding of offence under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act, has become infructuous. He prays that the same be disposed of as such. 2.Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact. 3.Disposed of as infructuous. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 24, 2014J.Ram (JASPAL SINGH) JUDGE

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.