Raghav Commodities (Dissolved Partnership Firm), Having Itsoffice At-205, Brij Anukampa, C-Scheme, Jaipur v. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Finance, Departmentof Income Tax, North Block, New Delhi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14896/2023 Raghav Commodities (Dissolved Partnership Firm), Having ItsOffice At-205, Brij Anukampa, C-Scheme, Jaipur, 302001Through Its Partner Sh. Ram Prakash Golyan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Finance, DepartmentOf Income Tax, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.Of Income Tax, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Member(Administration And Faceless Schemes), North Block,Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001.(Administration And Faceless Schemes), North Block,Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001. 3. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Through ItsIn-Charge Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax.In-Charge Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax. 4. Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(2), Jaipur, New CentralRevenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302001.Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed KhanFor Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak with For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Arnav Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 27/03/2024 1.Heard. 2.Though reply has not been filed by the respondents till date,we find that the petition has been filed by the petitioner becausehe could not get interim relief on account of rejection of theapplication under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thesubstantive appeal is still pending consideration. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that afterrejection of his application under Section 220(6) of the IncomeTax Act, he has preferred a representation before the PrincipalChief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, which so far has notbeen decided one way or the other. 4.Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submitthat the authority shall endeavor to decide the said representationas early as possible. 5.In view of above statement made before us, instead ofkeeping this petition pending, we are inclined to dispose it of, atthis stage, with direction to Principal Chief Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Jaipur to decide the representation of the petitionerwithin the outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of copyof this order. 6.The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, ifany, also stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Kamlesh Kumar-RAHUL/35