Case LawHigh Court › Wp/6882/2016 Of Jaipratapsingh Kotwalsin...

Wp/6882/2016 Of Jaipratapsingh Kotwalsingh Chauhan v. Ms. Usha S Nair, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 And Ors

High Court 10 Aug 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/6882/2016 Of Jaipratapsingh Kotwalsingh Chauhan v. Ms. Usha S Nair, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 And Ors
Date of order
10 Aug 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/6882/2016 Of Jaipratapsingh Kotwalsingh Chauhan v. Ms. Usha S Nair, Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 And Ors, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: 3.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

Sbw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6882 OF 2016 Jaipratapsingh Kotwalsingh Chauhan..PetitionerVersusMs. Usha S. Nair,Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-14& Ors...Respondents ........... Mr. Jitendra Jain a/w Ganesh Ambekar i/b. M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Asso. for the Petitioner.Mr. Ashok Kotangle for the Respondents. ........... CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 10[th] AUGUST, 2016 P.C.: This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 9[th] October, 2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune under Section 127(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). By the impugned notice the petitioner's case (assessment proceedings) were transferred from Pune to Chennai for the purposes of co-ordinated investigation and completion of assessment. Thereafter on 1[st] March, 2015 the Assistant Commissioner of 2. Income Tax, Chennai issued a notice under Section 153A of the Act to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to file his return in the prescribed form within 15 days of the service of this notice. The present petition was filed on 6[th] June, 2016. The petition does not contain any averment explaining the reason for the delay in moving this Court for challenging the order dated 9[th] October, 2015. In view of the delay on the part of the petitioner to move this Court to challenge the impugned notice dated 9[th ]October, 2015 coupled with the fact that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at Madras has already exercised jurisdiction by notice dated 1[st] March, 2016 under Section 153A of the Act, we see no reason to entertain this petition. 3.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A. K. MENON, J.)(M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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