COL JAI PARKASH SHARMA RETD vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULAAND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to Respondent No.2 (presumably the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioner (Annexures P-17, P-18, and P-19) expeditiously. The Court directed that these representations should be decided preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the rejection of the revised returns, focusing instead on the procedural aspect of ensuring the representations were addressed. No specific finding was given on the legality of the AO's action, as the matter was disposed of on the basis of the representations.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, a retired Army Officer, was entitled to War Injury Pension from 19.10.2009. He filed income tax returns for assessment years 2010-2011 to 2016-2017. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted returns for 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017. However, a different AO later rejected some revised returns for assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 by an order dated 11.10.2023, which the petitioner contended was impermissible. The petitioner made representations to the respondents, which are annexed to the petition. The petitioner sought disposal of the petition with a direction to the respondents to decide these representations.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the rejection of revised income tax returns for assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 by a subsequent Assessing Officer, after acceptance of earlier returns for the same years, is legally permissible? (Question of law turning on principles of administrative law and tax assessment procedures). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the rejection of revised returns by a different Assessing Officer, after the initial returns for those years were accepted, was impermissible in law. The petitioner relied on representations made to the respondents, annexed as Annexures P-17, P-18, and P-19. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice and did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's prayer for a direction to decide the representations.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
of this order.
2025 SwarnjitS
Wheth
Wheth 5
xed at Annexures P-17, P-18 a osed of with a direction to res ations in a time bound manner. ue notice to the respondents. Saurabh Kapor, Advocate ard. he afore-noted facts and circum e petition with a direction to re resentations (Annexure P-17, n a period of 03 months from the
(ANUPIN
(DE
her speaking/reasoned : Yes / her reportable
: Yes /
-2- and P-19. He submits that the spondent No.2 to consider and accepts notice on behalf of mstances, we deem it appropriate espondent No.2 to consider and P-18 and P-19) expeditiously e date of receipt of certified copy NDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE EEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE No No e d f e d y y SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.03.26 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
