Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Satish Chandra JaIn Vs. Itat

Satish Chandra Jain vs itat

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 05, 2004
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495078

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 128 of 2004 5 February 2004
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: R.R. Agarwal and Awasthi, for the Revenue Head Note: INCOME TAX Recovery--STAYApplication for stay pending before revenue authoritiesHeld: When neither the stay application was being disposed of nor the appeal filed against assessment order was being heard and meanwhile recovery proceedings had been init...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satish Chandra Jain

Advocate R.R. Agarwal and Awasthi, <i>for the Revenue</i>

Respondent

itat

Legal References

Reported In
[2005]142TAXMAN499(All)

Excerpt

counsels: r.r. agarwal and awasthi, for the revenue head note: income tax recovery--stayapplication for stay pending before revenue authoritiesheld: when neither the stay application was being disposed of nor the appeal filed against assessment order was being heard and meanwhile recovery proceedings had been initiated by issuing garnishee order, the tribunal was directed to dispose of the stay application filed by the assessee within 3 weeks and till then no recovery was to be made from the assessee. income tax act, 1961 s.220 in the allahabad high court dr. b.s. chauhan & ghanshyam dass, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadghanshyam dass, j.heard shri r.r. agarwal and shri awasthi for the revenue. the controversy involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass. assessment order had been passed under the income tax act and the appeal is pending.2. the appellate authority had granted the interim relief, however it expired by virtue of the statutory provisions after a period of 180 days, required under proviso 2 to section 254(2a) of the income tax act.3. the second stay application of the petitioner is pending, neither the stay application is being disposed of nor the appeal is being heard. however, recovery proceedings had been initiated issuing the garnishee order.4. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition requesting the appellate authority, i.e., respondent no. 1, to consider and dispose of the second application for stay filed by the assessee within a period of 3 weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of the order before him, which the petitioner shall file within a period of 1 week, from today and for a period of 4 weeks, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

Full Judgment

Ghanshyam Dass, J.

Heard Shri R.R. Agarwal and Shri Awasthi for the revenue. The controversy involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass. Assessment order had been passed under the Income Tax Act and the appeal is pending.

2. The appellate authority had granted the interim relief, however it expired by virtue of the statutory provisions after a period of 180 days, required under proviso 2 to section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act.

3. The second stay application of the petitioner is pending, neither the stay application is being disposed of nor the appeal is being heard. However, recovery proceedings had been initiated issuing the garnishee order.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition requesting the appellate authority, i.e., respondent No. 1, to consider and dispose of the second application for stay filed by the assessee within a period of 3 weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of the order before him, which the petitioner shall file within a period of 1 week, from today and for a period of 4 weeks, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial