Case LawHigh Court › M/S Birendra Prasad Singh v. Oral Order

M/S Birendra Prasad Singh v. Oral Order

High Court 15 Nov 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
M/S Birendra Prasad Singh v. Oral Order
Date of order
15 Nov 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Birendra Prasad Singh v. Oral Order, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4124 of 2019 ====================================================== M/s Birendra Prasad Singh, through its partner, Devesh Kumar, aged 34 Years(Male), Son of Birendra Prasad Singh, resident of Village Post Barki Mahuli,Police Station-Karghar, District-Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar, Patna2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DC/AC Circle-1, Gaya.3.Musafir, the Assistant Commissioner of Incme Tax, DC/AC Circle-1, Gaya.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, DC/AC Circle-1, Gaya.3.Musafir, the Assistant Commissioner of Incme Tax, DC/AC Circle-1, Gaya. 415-11-2019 ... ... Respondents ======================================================Appearance :For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rohit Raj, AdvocateFor the Income Tax: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) The instant application has been filed by thepetitioner seeking quashing of the assessment order dated10.12.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, DC/AC Circle-1, Gaya whereby the total income of thepetitioner has been assessed at Rs.6,16,66,170.00/- for theassessment year 2016-17. The petitioner has further challengedthe notice of demand dated 10.12.2018 issued in furtherance tothe aforesaid assessment order. At the outset, it is submitted Mr. Sandeep Kumar,learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the kanchan/- U application, the grievances of the petitioner has been redressedand assessment order for the year 2016-17 has been rectifiedand, accordingly, the demand notice dated 10.12.2018 has alsobeen rectified. In view of the submission made above, the application is disposed of. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) ( Anil Kumar Sinha, 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