Mjc/2588/2016 Of Pandooi Place v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna
High Court
18 Dec 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Mjc/2588/2016 Of Pandooi Place v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna
Date of order
18 Dec 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Mjc/2588/2016 Of Pandooi Place v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNAMiscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2588 of 2016InMiscellaneous Appeal No.566 of 2007
======================================================
Pandooi Place, Patna, a partnership firm having its office at Pandooi Place,Boring Road, Patna, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna through its partner, Sri RanjanKumar, Son of Sri Bamehswar Prasad Narayan Singh, Resident of PandooiPlace, Boring Road, P.S.- Budha Colony, Distt- Patna.
... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
2.Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Patna.
3.Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (5), Patna.
318-12-2023
... ... Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :For the Petitioner: None.For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
On 14.12.2023, the following order was passed:
“None appears for the petitioner.
2. The present matter is for restoration.Recalling order has not been placed onrecord. In the absence of the same, it is notpossible to examine for the purpose ofrestoration.
3. The present MJC application is pendingconsideration for the last seven years,therefore, in order to give one moreopportunity, relist this matter on 18.12.2023.If there is no representation, present
P.S./-
U
application would be dismissed for want ofproduction of recalling order and so also norepresentation.”
2. Today also, none appears for the petitioner.
3. Perusal of the pleadings in M.J.C. Petition No.2588of 2016 read with the order to be recalled, it is not a case forM.J.C. Petition for restoration.
4. Accordingly, the present M.J.C. Petition standsdismissed. If the petitioner intends to file litigation against therecalling of the order, he is at liberty to invoke appropriateremedy of filing Civil Review, in accordance with law.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
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