Pramod Kumar Rao v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
13 Feb 2006 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
Pramod Kumar Rao v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
13 Feb 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pramod Kumar Rao v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
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 UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 136 of 2006 (M/B)
Pramod Kumar Rao, S/o Late M.D. Rao, R/o House No. 113, Sector 30, Faridabad, Haryana. ………. Petitioner
Versus
1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 2, Uttaranchal,
District Dehradun.
2. Tax Recovery Officer,
Circle 2, District Dehradun.
3. M/s Hardcore Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.,
75/7 Rajpur Road,
District Dehradun. ……….. Respondents
Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J.
Hon. P.C. Verma, J.
P.C. VERMA, J. (Oral)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 21.02.2003, 14.08.2003 and 08.09.2005 passed by respondent No. 1.
2. By order dated 08.09.2005, certain dues of Income Tax have been sought to be recovered form the petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that these recovery proceedings have been initiated to recover the Income Tax dues assessed in the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Authority against which no appeal was preferred. Since it is open for the petitioner to challenge the assessment order and seek the stay of recovery in appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
3. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
G
(P.C. Verma, J.) 13.02.2006
(Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 13.02.2006
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.
EaseValue