Case LawHigh Court › Suresh Kumar Karamchandani Son Of Shri K...

Suresh Kumar Karamchandani Son Of Shri Khem Chandkaramchandani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

High Court 15 Jul 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Suresh Kumar Karamchandani Son Of Shri Khem Chandkaramchandani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur
Date of order
15 Jul 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Suresh Kumar Karamchandani Son Of Shri Khem Chandkaramchandani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10106/2022 Suresh Kumar Karamchandani Son Of Shri Khem ChandKaramchandani, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 122, RajmalJi Ka Talab, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur 302002 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur Having Its Address At NewCentral Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Advocate. For Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Malani Advocate on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Simlote Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Judgment / Order 15/07/2022 Heard. The impugned order passed by the Assessing Authorityunder Clause D of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ischallenged on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing wasnot afforded and without considering the application foradjournment, order has been passed on the ground that reply hasnot been filed, whereas before passing of the order, reply wasactually filed. Learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit thatwithout entering into such factual disputes, the petitioner’s casewould be re-considered, if he submits fresh reply within a periodof two weeks from today. In view of the statement so made by learned counsel for therespondent, nothing survives for adjudication. The impugnedorder dated 29.03.2022 passed under Close D of Section 148A ofthe Act shall not be given any effect. Respondent shall considerthe reply and pass the order in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Sanjay Kumawat-8
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) 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