Case LawHigh Court › Mr.kisan Brijmohan Pokhriyal v. Income T...

Mr.kisan Brijmohan Pokhriyal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1

High Court 13 Apr 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Mr.kisan Brijmohan Pokhriyal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1
Date of order
13 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Mr.kisan Brijmohan Pokhriyal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Considering that the order visits the petitioner with civil consequences, the impugned order dated 6th February, 2009 is quashed and set aside.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2519 OF 2009 Mr.Kisan Brijmohan Pokhriyal...Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1) Kalyan & Ors. ..Respondent Shri M.S.Lagu, for the Petitioner Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar with Mr. N.R. Prajapati, for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO &J.H. BHATIA, JJ.DATED: 13th April, 2009 CORAM: F.I. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED: 13th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 6th February, 2009 on several grounds. One of the grounds raised is that the application for stay was dismissed without hearing the petitioner and as such the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and fair play as also CBDT Circulars. Considering that the order visits the petitioner with civil consequences, the impugned order dated 6th February, 2009 is quashed and set aside. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel submits that he will be approaching the C.I.T. (A) (-2-) praying for stay. Considering that, the respondent No.1 is directed not to take steps for a period of eight weeks from today to enable the petitioner to move C.I.T. (A) for stay and for any other reliefs thereafter. With the above observation Rule made absolute accodingly. No oder as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
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