Case Law › High Court › Jagdish Solanki v. Union Of India

Jagdish Solanki v. Union Of India

High Court 17 May 2024 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · rhcjodh240618

Parties

Date of order

17 May 2024

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Jagdish Solanki v. Union Of India, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: 3.In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 211/2019 1. Income Tax Contingent Employees Union, Income- TaxOffice, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours OfIncome- Tax, Rajasthan Jodhpur).Office, Jodhpur. (Association Of Casual Labours OfIncome- Tax, Rajasthan Jodhpur). 2. Jagdish Solanki S/o Lal Chand, Aged About 43 Years,Babu Laxman Singh Colony, Outside Third Pole,Mahamandir, Jodhpur-342001, (President Of The Union)Babu Laxman Singh Colony, Outside Third Pole,Mahamandir, Jodhpur-342001, (President Of The Union) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,New Delhi - 110001.Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India,New Delhi - 110001. 2. Pr. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ncr Building,Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005.Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005. 3. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Paota, C-Road,Jodhpur-342010.Jodhpur-342010. 4. Hina P Shah, Member, Central Administrative Tribunal,Jodhpur-342001.Jodhpur-342001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s): None PresentFor Respondent(s): -For Respondent(s): - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 17/05/2024 1.The matter was listed on two occasions i.e. 13.07.2023 and17.10.2023; the same got adjourned, as nobody had put inappearance. 2.The matter is listed today and today also, nobody appearedon behalf of the petitioners. It is thus, clear that the petitionersare not interested in prosecuting the present petition. 3.In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. 4.Stay application also stands dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J(DINESH MEHTA),J 6-raksha/-

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.