SWATI SINGH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22332/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01118030202431 August 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default. This decision was based on the repeated non-appearance of the petitioner, which is noted as the third consecutive occasion. The Court also considered an application for amendment that sought to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, due to the petitioner's absence, no arguments were heard on this amendment application. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of any substantive issue related to the Income Tax Act, including the challenge to Section 147A, as the dismissal was procedural. The principle derived is that persistent non-appearance by a petitioner can lead to the dismissal of their case.

What were the facts?

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Swati Singh, before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenges an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh, and others. The judgment indicates this is the third consecutive occasion where the petitioner has not appeared. An application for amendment to include a challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was also filed. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates a repeated absence of the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed in default due to the petitioner's non-appearance on multiple occasions? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether an amendment to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be allowed? (Question of procedure and law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner. The absence of the petitioner and their counsel suggests no arguments were presented. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue was represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, and Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel. The judgment does not explicitly detail their arguments, but their presence indicates opposition to the petition or at least a readiness to defend the impugned action. The fact that the petition was dismissed in default implies the revenue's position, or the court's procedural view, prevailed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN (Sr. No. 106)

Swati Sin

The Incom

CORAM

Present :

DEEPAK (1) the petitio (2)

challenge (3)

31.08.202 sunil yadav

Wh N THE HIGH COURT OF P AT CHANDI

ngh Versus me Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Cha M : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE None for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior S Ms. Kavita, Advocate for the respondent(s)-Income Ta

* * * K SIBAL, J. (Oral) This is the third consecutive oner. No amendment application to the vires of Section 147A of Dismissed in default.

( v

hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No hether reportable : Yes / No PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH

CWP No.22332 of 2024 Date of decision : 31.08.2026 .....Petitio andigarh and others ` .....Responde E DEEPAK SIBAL E SUNISH BINDLISH Standing Counsel, Standing Counsel and ax Department. e occasion when none appears has also been filed to include the Income-tax Act, 1961. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE ( SUNISH BINDLISH ) JUDGE o o

6 oner ents for the SUNIL YADAV 2026.09.01 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order. Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →