COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. C.R BANSAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/27/2002HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01001362200230 July 2006Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide any issues on merits. Instead, it granted the appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax) six weeks' time to remove the defaults in the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that if these defaults were not rectified within the stipulated period, the appeal would stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without any further order. No finding was reached on any substantive tax matter, and no operative directions for relief or remand were issued concerning the assessment itself.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (appellant) against C.R. Bansal, Partner of M/s. Chhattisgarh Iron & Steel Works, Bhilai (respondent). The assessment year in question is 2002-2003. The appeal is under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court granted six weeks' time to the appellant to remove the defaults in the filing of the appeal. Failing compliance, the appeal was to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without any further order from the Court.

What were the issues?

The judgment does not explicitly state the issues that the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it record the arguments made by either the assessee or the revenue. The provided text is a procedural order regarding the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution due to failure to remove defaults within the granted time. Therefore, no questions of law or fact were decided on merits, and no contentions were recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHR^TTISGARH AT BILASPUR I.T.A. N0. 2 ''"' /2002 APPELLANT RESPONDENT A3^D2Z .S'^J^.—.^ Commissioner oflncome Tax, ' Raipur (C.G) VERSUS C.R. Bansal, Partner ofM/s.ChhattisgarhIron >. & Steel Works, 1/A, Light Industrial Area, P.R. Ne..—'.'a""''<""^;-i°y;"""'^'7^ ni.rLT t^^,i ./)twf.^^ Bhilai, /.--a-^ _- ' Dist. Durg (C.G) aa ^."u . / s ^- ^ ''-^ ^u ^-—' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT. 1961 J

XI-HC-22 sn^r^r f^TRisn^r a>iiN>gf?g' *ll*lMl sn*iith 3:^';:2fraT?ra', ®T(1y'i(s,toray 3iiq^| <^^ch W( 2002- Rl'b^i sn^TSRiTmflfstr Divislon Bei Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ &-Hon'bie_: Heard Shri Amit Choudharyi Finally, six weeks' time is which the shail stand dis -xuri.hgturder from the Court. Sd/- CUefJustfce *wh^ ^IKcff^te^t-rfsFKR ^sil^q-gn^r learned counsei for the appellant. Igranted to remove the defaults, failing si|nissed for non-prosecution without any <u i^ Sd/- DUip RaosahefrDeshmukh Judge iBi

*>h, MS ••900Z-60-U tyiti6I^U£llafi ifeu.^jifeit^ue i^itefiajttifauai i^usii&jte^ UZitejl <?21 .^.^tt^ 4ttel1^ (^jpKjiA) tbBh i^.ire •X]Suipjoo9& ——-—- psuuojui aq psunoQ (TOSS sq ^ipup( ^eui yed issqs spu s(re}sp joj) -poo? 0-I£ psvep JspJO Aiotdiusjsd jo 39UBi{diuo3-aou joj psssnusip sc paisaA si ZOOZ/^Z -ON VlT siqj. ^^a^-v.l^-^fijj^ut •>'R»ii->y'°>i>ft(p»'MatelteteE 8Z.-3H-IX

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →