PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. SONAL JAIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/24/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02084308202306 August 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw the appeal. The appellant was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal against the same impugned order, along with a stay application and a limitation application.

What were the facts?

The appellant's advocate initially sought to withdraw the appeal based on instructions. However, it was later clarified that there was no written instruction to withdraw. The appellant then sought to withdraw to file a fresh appeal with necessary applications.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the appeal to file a fresh one with additional applications. The procedural aspect of filing a fresh appeal after withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

01.04.2024 1 PG/KS Ct. No.1 M.A.T. 24 of 2024 Sitaram Sharma Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 40, Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Avra Mazumder Mr. Kausheyo Roy ………..for the appellant 1. On 19th March, 2024, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted a letter seeking permission to withdraw the appeal on the instruction from his client. The said letter was placed on record and the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. It appears that on the said date, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant was not in possession of any written communication from the appellant directing him to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, learned advocate had sent an e-mail through whom the appellant had entrusted the brief to the learned counsel appearing in this appeal to give written instruction to withdraw the appeal. 3. The said advocate has responded by stating that the client is no longer working with him and he may contact the new advocate on record for further clarification.

4.

Thus, as on date, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant does not have any written instruction to withdraw this appeal. However, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that since the stay application along with the annexures and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been filed in this appeal, he seeks permission to withdraw the appeal to file a fresh appeal against the very same impugned order along with the stay application and annexures as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal against the very same impugned order along with the stay application and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. No costs. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

(T.S SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) 2

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →