Case LawHigh Court › Om Prakash v. Union Of India

Om Prakash v. Union Of India

High Court 04 Dec 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Om Prakash v. Union Of India
Date of order
04 Dec 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Om Prakash v. Union Of India, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Considering the submission, the writ petition is dismissed aswithdrawn with liberty to approach before the Tribunal.Considering that the petitioner had to approach this Court asTribunal itself was not functional, if the petitioner approaches theTribunal within a period of 60 days, the Tribunal shall...

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1773/2020 Om Prakash S/o Shri Madan Lal Prajapat, Aged About 40 Years,Village-Khanpur, Tehsil-Ladnu, District-Nagaur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, (Benami Transaction)And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No.2500, Statue Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, JaipurAnd Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No.2500, Statue Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, Jaipur 2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Income TaxDepartment, Government Of India, New DelhiDepartment, Government Of India, New Delhi 3. Adjudicating Authority, Under The Prohibition Of BenamiProperty Transaction Act-1988, Room No.26, 4Th Floor,Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001Property Transaction Act-1988, Room No.26, 4Th Floor,Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 4. Smt. Raj Kanwar W/o Late Shri Anandpal Singh, R/oDayanand Colony, Ladnu, District-NagaurDayanand Colony, Ladnu, District-Nagaur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Jain with Mr. S.K. Jain For Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 04/12/2024 1. Heard. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the circumstances in which the writ petition had to befiled was that the Appellate Tribunal was not functional. However,during the pendency of this petition, the Tribunal has become functional, therefore, liberty may be granted to oppose before theTribunal. 3. Considering the submission, the writ petition is dismissed aswithdrawn with liberty to approach before the Tribunal.Considering that the petitioner had to approach this Court asTribunal itself was not functional, if the petitioner approaches theTribunal within a period of 60 days, the Tribunal shall decide thematter on its own merits without going into the issue of limitation. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N. Gandhi/Upendra/53
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