SHREY LEEKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/31301/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01161213202421 November 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the writ petition in default. The Court noted that this was the second consecutive occasion where no one appeared for the petitioner. Despite the petitioner being informed about the listing of the matter following a remand by the Supreme Court, and the pendency of a potential amendment application to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the absence of the petitioner led to the dismissal. The Court did not decide on the merits of the case or the challenge to Section 147A. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shrey Leek, is challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Department. This is the second consecutive occasion where no one has appeared for the petitioner. The Court notes that the petitioner was informed about the listing of the matter after a remand by the Supreme Court through an order dated April 10, 2026. Additionally, no amendment application has been filed to include the vires of Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the challenge. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the provided text.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petition should be dismissed in default due to the absence of the petitioner and their counsel. Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee (petitioner) in this instance. However, the mention of a Supreme Court remand order and a proposed amendment to challenge Section 147A suggests prior legal proceedings and potential grounds of challenge. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, has appeared. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments, but their presence indicates opposition to the petitioner's case. The fact that the matter is listed for the second consecutive occasion and the petitioner's counsel is absent implies the revenue might be arguing for dismissal due to non-prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

142 142 142 142

IN T IN T IN T IN T

SHREY LEEK SHREY LEEK SHREY LEEK SHREY LEEK INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : No M fo (T

**

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Th the petitioner a counsel for the matter after rem

2.

No challenge to the 3. Di

08 08 08 08.09 .09 .09 .09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

KHA KHA KHA KHA

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER AND ORS X OFFICER AND ORS X OFFICER AND ORS X OFFICER AND ORS

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI one for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standi r the respondents-Income Tax D Through Video Conferencing) *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) his is the second consecutive o and this is in spite of the fact th e petitioner has been duly inform mand by the Supreme Court thro o amendment application has e vires of Section 147A of the In ismissed in default.

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-31301 31301 31301 31301-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 08 08 08 08.09. .09. .09. .09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK PAK PAK PAK SIBAL SIBAL SIBAL SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ing Counsel Department. ccasion when none appears for hat as per office report, learned med with regard to listing of this ough order dated 10.04.2026. also been filed to include the ncome Tax Act, 1961. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH (SUNISH BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH) BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No

r d s e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.09 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →