Case LawHigh Court › Mccno v. Respondents Commissioner Of Tnc...

Mccno v. Respondents Commissioner Of Tncome Of Tncome Tncome

High Court 04 Sep 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Mccno v. Respondents Commissioner Of Tncome Of Tncome Tncome
Date of order
04 Sep 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Mccno v. Respondents Commissioner Of Tncome Of Tncome Tncome, the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

"a^ •-^^^l, m:^ (N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) ^3-7- /2QiP ^' MCCNo. Petitionert/s Swadesh Agro Tech Ltd,ZjiThrough Partner SanjeevAgrawal C-17,ParijatCommercial Complex, E-5,'ft-^'Arera Colony, Bhopal( M.P.) M.P.)pti,?^^u""'l,..^-I'riQ^Q—-^r-^rVersusRespondentsCommissioner of tncome of tncome tncome ( M.P.) M.P.) Commissioner of tncome of tncome tncomeTax, Central RevenueBuilding, Civil Lines,Raipur, (C.G.) The Asst. Commissioner of^-lncomeTqx-32/32Bungalaw, Bhitai. (C.G.)3,$>,-y<L^hn-0&^&voj(((^\{7' At^r- ^^^^ A^-<-(2?1/V^MM1^TheAddLDITf)^(Investigation) Cen^ralRevenue Buiklding, CivilLines, Raipur (C.G.) APPUCATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE W.P. fT) No.^^998/2009 DISMISSED ON ACCOUNTOF NONAPPERANCE. ^ 755T ^WW^, tS>-c{1<-l<l(S, ic<(?J)|^14<i^7.c^-t^.^/]0NIH<ytf *^|eb20^cc- i-3-7/l,^W^ '<T3T^ (^f^<^)^T^^f^TWX^T^^"3crf^TW^T^i^!<n41'i ^iH<rif ^f Fs^) <f^;^i7^mws^T ^pqw^~ ^tRrq S^T^TS.B.: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohfan Shrivastava. J.IK04-09-2012Shri A K Patil, counsel ftw th^ petittoner.Shri Anand Dadariya, coureelfor the responctente.Heard.Learned counsel for the petitioner submtts that proper affidavtthas been filaJ by him today.The same is taken on TWO^. \Also heard on prayerfor restc}ration.L^rned counsel ft>r the re^pondents opposes the prayer forrestcu-ation.Takjng into consideration th^grounds unged in the appUcationfor restoration, I am satisfied that j|j^ and sufficient cause has beenshown by the counsel for hte non-ap()earance on 17-01-2011, when theca^ was calted for hearing.Accordingfy. the order of di^missal pe®sedon 17-01-2011 ishereby recalled and the writ p^ittonrestored to its origuial number.Sd/-Manindra Mohan stlrivastavaJudgcTumanei-. ?T^-r<"T:if-—iS43—1/ 2012—1,50,000.
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan