Skip to content


Satya Narayan Sharma Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Satya Narayan Sharma

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Excerpt:


.....of the personal reasons of the petitioner, the matter could not be heard by the respondent no.3. it is listed for orders today and it is submitted that for a further period of two months', time period for deciding the appeal by respondent no.3, may be extended. considering the fact that vide order dated 08.11.2012, four months' time was allowed to decide the appeal, which period has already expired and it appears that because of personal reasons of petitioner, the matter could not be heard by respondent no.3. as the matter is listed today itself, we dispose of this review petition with following directions:- 1. petitioner himself or through his counsel shall cooperate with the respondent no.3 for hearing of the appeal, in compliance of our order dated 08.11.2012 in w.p.no.17145/2012.”2. the respondent no.3 shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of four weeks from today. with the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of finally. c.c.today. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt. vimla jain) judge judge psm

Judgment:


R.P.No.159/2013 13.03.2013 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents.

This application is filed for extension of the time for deciding the appeal by the respondent No.3, in compliance of order dated 08.11.2012 in W.P.No.17145/2012.

It is submitted that because of the personal reasons of the petitioner, the matter could not be heard by the respondent No.3.

It is listed for orders today and it is submitted that for a further period of two months', time period for deciding the appeal by respondent No.3, may be extended.

Considering the fact that vide order dated 08.11.2012, four months' time was allowed to decide the appeal, which period has already expired and it appears that because of personal reasons of petitioner, the matter could not be heard by respondent No.3.

As the matter is listed today itself, we dispose of this review petition with following directions:- 1.

Petitioner himself or through his counsel shall cooperate with the respondent No.3 for hearing of the appeal, in compliance of our order dated 08.11.2012 in W.P.No.17145/2012.”

2. The respondent No.3 shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of four weeks from today.

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of finally.

C.C.today.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.

Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //