Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1,Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10735/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas,Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1,Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor,Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board OfDirect Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, SecretariatBuilding, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter & Ms. Apeksha Bapna Mr. Rohan Chatter & Ms. Apeksha Bapna For Respondent No.1: Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal For Respondent No.2:Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 29/07/2025 Order 1. Revenue had rejected settlement application on the groundthat it was filed beyond the cut off date. 2.Both counsels in unison state that such issue has been answered in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar FactoryLtd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralCircle 1 (1), Maharashtra, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Interim Board (Settlement Commission), New Delhi, Unionof India[1]. 3. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent No.1 states thathis instructions are that there could be another ground forrejection, namely, that there was no pending proceedings and,therefore, the pre-condition to file an application beforeSettlement Commissioner is not satisfied. 4.As we do not find this ground raised anywhere, following lawlaid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd.(supra), which was authored by one of us (Chief Justice),impugned notices dated 08[th] March 2021 and 28[th] June 2021 arehereby quashed and set aside keeping open all rights andcontentions of the parties. Application filed before the InterimBoard be considered and disposed in accordance with law. 5.Petition disposed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N. Gandhi-Daksh/44