The Commissioner Of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak v. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. ( Oral
High Court
22 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak v. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. ( Oral
Date of order
22 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak v. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. ( Oral, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: Thereafter, record was re-constructed.It is not clear whether the notice had been initially served onthe assessee.
Decision: Hence, we direct that notice be issued to the assessee byregistered post for 1.3.2005 so as to enable her to appear inperson or through an Advocate to contest the reference.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
I.T.R. No. 58 of 1986DATE OF DECISION : 22.01.2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana, Rohtak.
.... APPLICANT-REVENUE
Versus
Smt. Kulwant Sethi
..... RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the Revenue.
* * *
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral )
On January 24, 2005, this Court passed the following order :
“Record of this reference was burnt in the fire accidentwhich occurred in 1996. Thereafter, record was re-constructed.It is not clear whether the notice had been initially served onthe assessee.
Hence, we direct that notice be issued to the assessee byregistered post for 1.3.2005 so as to enable her to appear inperson or through an Advocate to contest the reference.
Learned counsel for the Revenue should furnish the latest
address of the assessee within three days from today. Thereafterregistered notice be issued at the Court's expense.”
Till date, counsel for the department has not furnished any address of theassessee and other records for re-constructing the paper book. Mr. Putneystates that the department is unable to do this, because the record is also notavailable in their office.
In view of the above, this reference is returned un-answered.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE
January 22, 2008 ndj
( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGE
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.