KANTA KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA/137/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041984200112 November 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The reasoning was based on the consistent non-appearance of the appellant's counsel for multiple dates, including the current date. The court observed that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Kanta Kumar against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu & Anr. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The order or action under challenge and the authority that passed it are not detailed. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history indicates that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant for the last three dates, and even on the current date, the learned counsel for the appellant was not present. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana was hearing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution, considering the consistent absence of the appellant's counsel? (Question of procedure) The appellant's side did not present any arguments as their counsel was absent. The revenue's side, represented by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel, was present. The court noted the absence of the appellant's counsel for the last three dates and on the present date.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

201(4)

Kanta Kumar

Commissione

CORAM: H

Present: N

SANJEEV P 1.

N 2.

E 3.

I 4.

12.11.2024 rajesh 1 2 IN THE HIGH COURT O AT CHANDIGA I D

Vs. er of Income Tax Jammu & Anr.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN None for the appellant. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standin

***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) No one appears on behalf of the a Even today learned counsel for th In view thereof, the appeal is dism All pending misc. application(s)

(SANJ (

1.

Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable?

OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-137-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.11.2024

…Appellant

…Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ng Counsel for the revenue.

) appellant for the last three dates. he appellant is not present. missed for want of prosecution. also stand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR 2024.11.13 16:36 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →