Case LawHigh Court › This Petition Seeks Quashing Of Order Da...

This Petition Seeks Quashing Of Order Dated 20.12.2012 Under Section 127 v. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Dibrugarh And Ors

High Court 30 Jan 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · asghccis
Parties
This Petition Seeks Quashing Of Order Dated 20.12.2012 Under Section 127 v. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Dibrugarh And Ors
Date of order
30 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In This Petition Seeks Quashing Of Order Dated 20.12.2012 Under Section 127 v. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Dibrugarh And Ors, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: For the reasons already mentioned in W.P.(C) No.302 of 2013, the petition is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
WP(C) 308/2013BEFOREHON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.K.Goel, C.J.) This petition seeks quashing of order dated 20.12.2012 under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act transferring the assessment cases of the petitioner to Delhi for effective coordinated investigation and administrative convenience for the reasons mentioned therein. The impugned order is a common for the petitioner and W.P.(C) No.302 of 2013 (Continental Milkose (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Dibrugarh and ors.) On due consideration, W.P.(C) No.302 of 2013 has been dismissed by a separate order passed today. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitionerhas nothing to do with W.P.(C) No.302 of 2013 and, therefore, the said order isnot justified. We are unable to accept this submission. It is seen that the petitioner is the wife of Shri Deepak Agarwal, who is admittedly one of the Directors of Continental Milkose (India) Limited and whose individual writ petition being W.P.(C) No.304 of 2013 (Deepak Agarwal -Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax and ors), has been dismissed by separate order passed today. For the reasons already mentioned in W.P.(C) No.302 of 2013, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this order will not debar the petitioner from seeking re-transfer of her cases at appropriate stage, by making out a case for suchorder.
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