Case LawHigh Court › M/S. Chhaganlal Dayaljee Jewels v. The C...

M/S. Chhaganlal Dayaljee Jewels v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamshedpur

High Court 06 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jhar_pg
Parties
M/S. Chhaganlal Dayaljee Jewels v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamshedpur
Date of order
06 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In M/S. Chhaganlal Dayaljee Jewels v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jamshedpur, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: This application has been submitted seeking modification in the order dated 31[st] January, 2013 by which direction has been issued to the Assessing Officer to look into the fact that when the fourth order was dispatched and whether it was dispatched on 6.1.2010 or on any other date and then the Ass...

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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHIC.M.P. No. 85 of 2013 M/s. Chhaganlal Dayaljee Jewels ...Petitioner Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamshedpur... Opposite Party------- CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, AdvocateFor the Opposite Party : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate------Order No. 02 Dated 6th March, 2013 Defects are ignored. This application has been submitted seeking modification in the order dated 31[st] January, 2013 by which direction has been issued to the Assessing Officer to look into the fact that when the fourth order was dispatched and whether it was dispatched on 6.1.2010 or on any other date and then the Assessing Officer was directed to find out whether the proceeding was within limitation or not. However, the Tribunal, in remand order dated 14.02.2012, sent the matter to the C.I.T.(Appeals) and not to the Assessing Officer and in the facts of the case the matter can be examined only by the C.I.T.(Appeals) in the light of the decision of the remand order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the I.T.A.T., Circuit Bench, Ranchi in Tax Appeal No. 162/RAN/2010.l Therefore, it is made clear that in place of word “Assessing Officer” in para 4 of the order dated 31[st] January, 2013, the “C.I.T.(Appeals), Jamshedpur” be read. The C.M.P. is allowed. (Prakash Tatia, C.J.) (Jaya Roy, J) Birendra/
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan