Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Churu, Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra Saini
High Court
03 Jul 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Churu, Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra Saini
Date of order
03 Jul 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Churu, Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra Saini, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Be that as it may, since none appears for the writ petitionersat the hearing today, the writ petition is dismissed in default.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4750/2008
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.
2.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. Commissioner of Income Tax III, Jaiupr, Rajasthan.
4. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Income Tax Officer, Ward (2), Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ram Chandra Saini, S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Saini, aged about 35 years, R/o C/o Satyadan Charan, Rani Bazar Choraha, Bikaner (Rajasthan) presently workingo n the post of U.D.C. in the Office of TRO, Sikar (Rajasthan).
2. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : None appears
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Malik
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Order
03/07/2017
1.Adverse entries for the assessment years 2000-2001 and
2001-2002 concerning the respondent have been quashed by theCentral Administrative Tribunal. There was an inordinate delay ofthree years in communicating the adverse entries. The Tribunalhas also found that for the subsequent years, working of therespondent was found to be satisfactory.
2.While admitting the writ petition, operation of the impugned
order was declined to be stayed. The fact obviously is that the
respondent has moved ahead in the career growth with referenceto ACR, sans the adverse entries.
3. Be that as it may, since none appears for the writ petitionersat the hearing today, the writ petition is dismissed in default.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.
ns.4
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.