Sardar Baldeo Singh Bhatia, Ranjandgaon, Chhatisgarh v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Others
High Court
22 Jan 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Sardar Baldeo Singh Bhatia, Ranjandgaon, Chhatisgarh v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Others
Date of order
22 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Sardar Baldeo Singh Bhatia, Ranjandgaon, Chhatisgarh v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Others, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Issue: We clarify that the question as to whether there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in cooperating with the first respondent in the disposal of the proceedings is kept open to be decided on facts by the first respondent.
Decision: 2.In view of the aforesaid directions, no further relief has been sought at the hearing of the petition, which shall accordingly stand disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4600 OF 2008
Sardar Baldeo Singh Bhatia, Ranjandgaon, ChhatisgarhVersus
..Petitioner.
Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Others
..Respondents.
Mr.N.M. Porwal for the petitioner.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondents.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 22[nd] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated before the Court that in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Star Television News Limited V/s. Union of India (2009) 27 DTR 50 (Bom), the only relief which is now sought is a direction to the first respondent to hear and decide the application made by the petitioner under section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on merits. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench construing the provisions of Section 245HA and Section 245D(4A), it would be appropriate and proper for this Court to direct the first respondent to hear and dispose of the application made by the petitioner under section 245C(1) on merits. We clarify that the question as to whether there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in
cooperating with the first respondent in the disposal of the proceedings is kept open to be decided on facts by the first respondent.
2.In view of the aforesaid directions, no further relief has been sought at the hearing of the petition, which shall accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
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.