HARDEEP SINGH RANDHAWA vs. D.C.I.T.

ITA/321/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02102192201809 July 2026Bench: ARUN MONGA,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The reasoning was based on the submission by the appellant's counsel that he had no instructions from his client, rendering further prosecution impossible. While the revenue argued that the questions of law were already decided in their favour by the Kerala High Court, the Court did not delve into the merits of these arguments. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal. The questions of law framed by the Court were expressly left open to be decided in appropriate future proceedings, should the occasion arise. No finding was given on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Hardeep Singh Randhawa, Proprietor of M/s. Rajdhani Gas Service, is challenging an order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur. This ITAT order had dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The assessment years are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history involves an appeal to the CIT(A), then to the ITAT, and finally to the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's counsel having no instructions from the client. (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Appellant: The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no instructions from his client, as all attempts to contact him have been unsuccessful. Revenue: The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the questions of law framed by the High Court have already been answered in favour of the revenue in a similar matter decided by the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C.) No. 14218/2026 vide judgment dated 08.04.2026. Therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:25841-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 321/2018 URN: ITA / 493U / 2018 Hardeep Singh Randhawa, Proprieter M/s. Rajdhani Gas Service, 236, Mehta Marg Corner, Galta Road, Suraj Pole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus D.c.i.t., Circle-5, N.c.r. Building, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya Pathak, Adv. for Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/07/2026 1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 20.07.2018 passed by Ld. ITAT, Jaipur vide which appeal filed by the appellant against order dated 25.03.2015 passed by Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has no instructions from his client as all his attempts to contact him have been an exercise in futility. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the questions of law framed by this Court have already been answered in favour of revenue in a similar matter which was pending before the Kerala High Court vide the judgment dated 08.04.2026 rendered in W.P.(C.) No. 14218/2026 and in view thereof, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed even on merits.

[2026:RJ-JP:25841-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-321/2018] 3. Be that as it may, given that learned counsel for the appellant pleads no instructions, we are dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and the questions which were framed while admitting the appeal are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings, should an occasion arise in future. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (ARUN MONGA),J 73/ASHWANI-PARSHANT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →