High CourtsDivision Bench(2024) 07 JH CK 0087

M/s Rishabh Commodeal Private Limited vs Union Of India & Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 11 July 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.R.Sarangi, CJ · Sujit Narayan Prasad, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (T) No. 2358 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 373 words
1.

Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the defect, as pointed out by the office, shall be removed within a week.

2.

It has been contended that the matter is to be considered taking into account the judgments passed by the Kerala High  Court,  Delhi  High  Court  and  the  Hon’ble  Apex Court and to that extent, he has relied upon the judgments of Income Tax Officer Vs. Vazhakkulam Block Rural Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Ker 1619; Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 723; Raza Textiles Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Rampur, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 633; Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. Lucknow Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi and Ors., reported in 2017 (399) ITR 81 (Del) and M/s Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors., reported in (1971) 1 SCC 453.

3.

Per contra, Mr. Anurag Vijay, learned Sr. SC (I.T. Deptt.) for the respondent-Revenue has contended that the matter is covered by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in Anshul Jain Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3748 equivalent to (2022) 449 ITR 251, which is confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

4.

It appears that the defective application has been listed before this Court and earlier in this case, interim order has been passed but as per the High Court Rules of the Jharkhand, it is the defect free application which should have been listed and the circumstances in which the defective application has been listed and the interim order has been passed is not placed on record.

5.

Therefore, this Court allows the learned counsel for the petitioner to remove the defect.

6.

Learned counsel for the respondent-revenue on earlier two occasions has sought for time to file counter affidavit. It has been contended that he may be allowed to file counter affidavit within a week.

7.

The judgments relied upon by the parties shall be taken into consideration at the time of hearing of the matter on merit.

8.

Accordingly, list this matter on 01.08.2024.