Income Tax Officerward 1(1) Raipur v. Respondentram Narayan Agrawal
High Court
11 Apr 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Income Tax Officerward 1(1) Raipur v. Respondentram Narayan Agrawal
Date of order
11 Apr 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax Officerward 1(1) Raipur v. Respondentram Narayan Agrawal, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
f
Oiviaion Bend
IN HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR
^ssOF 2012
M.C.C. N0.
APPLICATION FOR RES'I^RATION OF TAX CASE-s-r:\-._..-___ --. .......---7^7_^..—j.N0.37/06 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROS€CUTIONON 16.03.2012
The applicant, above named, most humbly anct respectfullysubmits as under;-
^^
^J-'
"^,
ashok
HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPURM.C.C.N0.3550F2012
APPLSCANT(Appeliant)
income Tax OfficerWard 1(1) Raipur
Versus
RESPONDENTRam Narayan Agrawal
APPLiCATJON FOR RESTORATION OF TAX CASE N0.37/06 DISMiSSED
FORWANT QF PROSECUT'QN QN 1S.Q3.2Q12
D.S.Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri &Hon'bSe Shri ftflanlndra l^ohan Shrivastava, JJ.
Present:-Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the appiicant^
QRDER
(Passed on thls 11m day ofApril, 2012)
Learned counsei appearing for the appiicant submits that the counsel forthe appeliant couid not appear on account of borsa fide mistake, therefore,Tax Case No.37/2006, which was dismissed on 16.03.2012, may be'restored to Its fiie».
Reasonabie and sufficient cause has been shown. Tax Case No.37/2006,js restored to the originai file.\
\
A copy of this order be placed on record of the oriainai tax case and the
same be
for hearing.
Sd/-MamndraMohan ShrivastavaJudge
Sd/-Satish K.AgnihotriJudge
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