Wp/492/1989 Of Rampher v. Income Tax Officer And 1 Other
High Court
28 Jun 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Wp/492/1989 Of Rampher v. Income Tax Officer And 1 Other
Date of order
28 Jun 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/492/1989 Of Rampher v. Income Tax Officer And 1 Other, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
E;
IN THE HIGH CDURT OF MABtnft PBADESH AT~JABALPUa^MISC. PETITION N0./1968PETITIONEB:-BWPHERs/o Datadin Jaiswal,aged 65 years. 219, Sector-I ,SaiataColony, Baipir.Versus
^•'^
RESPa'IIENTsi-^ 1 • Incoae tax Officer, SIG-I, Raipur .^2. Commissioner ef Incoae -tax, Jabalour.!PETITION UNISR.ARTId.ES 226 AI^D 227 OF THEQ3NSriTUriONOF IN0IA1
^Svcf 'vfKiw^, u-n)<M<i<s, RriK-f^
•^iyV,
-O^" M'? 2J S^
•(iini^'n^
W(. 200
sn^si <wp (^ig^)
OT^nwiRRtoTfaTSRflftasii^ncfsirantngnri®28.6.200SWhen the the inatter is cer.^'
*l^fn<l1lllinV*ffel^) >(|u|+^|<(^srf^Han^CT
iped out, none present on behalf of the
When the the inatter is cepctitioiicr.
tsceived to tttis Court on transfer fi'omOn 17.11.2000 &e Court directed tofhat Registry has issued the SPC.On.directed to usue SPC iadicatiag the|rcprescntati.on bcforc the Court and as^as[issued][ on][ 4.3.05.][ On][ 25.4.2005]India Mr. Vijay Siugh Thakur appearste but no one appears on. behalf of fb.e
TIus matter has beenMadhya F'radesh High C^iurtissue SPC aad ia response o:28.2,2005 tfae Court againparties[to][ appcar][ aiid][ inakc]per[Reg^try][ ~][ note][ notice][ v]Assistaat Solicitor General o]on liehalf of the respondenipetitioaers.
.(.
Perusal of ttic pctitioD|shows that this pctition has becn fifcdagainstttiesbowcausenoticeissuedbyftieIncomeTaxDepartment, Raipur under ^ection 147(b) of fh.e Income Tax Act forfhe assessinent year 1984-81i. it is settled law fhat agaiast the showcause noti.ee no writ petiti<]in lies.Tlie petitioner is at Uberty toappear beforc fhc aufhority ^id ffle reply of thc sliow causc no^icc.Accordmgly, the petil^>n is disinlssed for nou-prosecution a5weU as on nierit.
(^
Sd/-L.C.BHADOOJudge
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