Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Raipur (C.g v. Cause-Title Taken From Case Information System
High Court
31 Oct 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Raipur (C.g v. Cause-Title Taken From Case Information System
Date of order
31 Oct 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Raipur (C.g v. Cause-Title Taken From Case Information System, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as notpressed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
NAFR
TAXC No. 78 of 2022
Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Raipur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rachna Devi Sadhwani L/h Of Late Shri Kalyan Das Sadhwani L/H ofLate Shri Kalyan Das Sadhwani, A-3, Mahaveer Goushalla Complex, K.K.Road, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, JudgeOrder on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
31.10.2022
Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel for the appellant submits thatthe issue arising in this appeal is deletion of the addition of Rs.10,45,804/-made by the Assessing Officer.
2.It is submitted by her that this appeal under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 will not be maintainable, in view of the Circular No.17/2019 issued by Memo No.F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.), Governmentof India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct
Hem
Taxes, Judicial Section, dated 08.08.2019, whereby monetary limit forpreferring an appeal before the High Court is fixed at Rs.1,00,00,000.00.
3.In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as notpressed.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami)
(Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
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