M/S SHARAT KUMAR & CO. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/98/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042146200110 December 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Court noted that the Registry had repeatedly directed the parties to take steps for the reconstruction of the file, but no action was taken. Furthermore, the case file was stated to have been fully burnt in a fire incident in the Registry. In light of these circumstances, and with no one appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not provide any findings on the merits of the case or the substantive issues that might have been before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA-98-2001, was filed by M/s Sharat Kumar & Co. against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala. The case was listed for hearing on 10.12.2024 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Registry had repeatedly informed the parties to take steps for the reconstruction of the file. However, no such steps were taken. The file itself was reportedly destroyed in a fire incident that occurred in the Registry. Due to the lack of action from the parties and the destruction of the file, the Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can proceed for adjudication given the destruction of the case file due to a fire incident and the failure of the parties to take steps for its reconstruction? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s Sharat Kumar & Co. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

203 I M/s Sharat Ku

Commissione

CORAM: H

Present: N SANJEEV P 1.

T take steps for 2.

T which took pl of the parties. 3.

I 4.

10.12.2024 rajesh 1 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA I D umar & Co.

Vs. er of Income Tax, Patiala HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN None. ***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) The parties were informed by reconstruction of the file but no The file is stated to have been lace in the Registry. Even other

In view thereof, the ITA is dismi All pending misc. application(s)

(SANJ (

1.

Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable?

NJAB AND HARYANA ARH ITA-98-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2024

…Appellant

…Respondent NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH ) the Registry time and again to steps have been taken. fully burnt in the fire incident rwise, no one appears on behalf issed for non-prosecution. also stand disposed of. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No o t f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.12.11 13:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →