In v. Chief Commissioner Of Incometax Delhi, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 4.Since none appears for the petitioner to argue the writ petition thesame is dismissed in default.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
$~29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+W.P.(CRL) 1123/2012SATISH CHAND SINGHALSATISH CHAND SINGHAL
..... Petitioner
Represented by:None
versus
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX DELHI
Represented by:None
..... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOGO R D E R%31.05.2016
1.None appears for the parties.
2.Order-sheet would show that though the writ petition was admittedbut no stay was granted meaning thereby proceedings have continued before
thelearnedAddl.ChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.Thepetitionerischallenging a summoning order on a complaint filed by the Income-Taxauthorities alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishableunder Section 276C(1)/277 of the Income-Tax Act.
3.The factual basis is falsification of the books of accounts to diminishincome by `4,20,821/-.
4.Since none appears for the petitioner to argue the writ petition thesame is dismissed in default.
5.No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MAY 31, 2016/skb
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