Case LawHigh Court › Rekha Chandra v. The Chief Commissioner...

Rekha Chandra v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 22 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Rekha Chandra v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
22 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Rekha Chandra v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

Decision: Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.270 of 2011 ====================================================== Rekha Chandra, W/o Dr. Ramesh Chandra R/o Chandra Bhawan, Mithapur B Area, P.S.-Jakkanapur, District-Patna. …………Petitioner Versus 1.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Revenue Building, Bailey Road, Patna. Road, Patna. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Revenue Building Bailey Road, Patna. Patna. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbunglow Road, Patna. Bhawan, Dakbunglow Road, Patna. …….. Respondents. ====================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Sahay, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 22.04.2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Rekha Chandra for recovery of jewellery seized by the Income Tax Department on 26[th]November 1992. Pursuant to the said search and seizure; admittedly neither the petitioner nor her husband has been held liable for recovery nor any demand has been raised against the petitioner or her husband. Nevertheless, the Department failed to return the jewellery seized. Therefore, the present writ petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Prakash Sahay appears for the petitioner. He admits that pending this petition, Income Tax Department has returned the jewellery seized on 26[th] November 1992. He agrees that the cause of action does not survive. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Leave is granted. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. ( R.M.Doshit,CJ. ) Sujit (Jyoti Saran,J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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