J.P. Mathur Vs. Cit - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

counsels: yuv raj sonel, for the assessee s. bhandawat, for the revenue in the rajasthan high court, jodhpur bench prakash tatia, j. - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction......is aggrieved against the demand created by respondent no. 2 of the rs. 25,313 as demand of income-tax by disallowing the exemption provided under section 10(14) of the income tax act. according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy has been settled down by division bench in lic of india v. union of india and connected dbc special appeal no. 406/2001 decided on 22-1-2003. according to both the counsel, in view of decision of this court, this demand of rs. 25,313 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.2. in view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. the demand raised against the petitioner of rs. 25,313 under section 10(14) of the income tax act is quashed. consequently, the notice of demand is also quashed.3. it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of said demand, respondents have issued notice dated 27-1-2003 and attached the bank account of the petitioner which is in uco bank, station road, makrana. since the demand itself has been quashed by this court, therefore, if any attachment order has been issued by the respondents, they are directed to withdraw.....

Judgment:

ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved against the demand created by respondent No. 2 of the Rs. 25,313 as demand of income-tax by disallowing the exemption provided under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the controversy has been settled down by Division Bench in LIC of India v. Union of India and connected DBC Special Appeal No. 406/2001 decided on 22-1-2003. According to both the counsel, in view of decision of this court, this demand of Rs. 25,313 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

2. In view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The demand raised against the petitioner of Rs. 25,313 under section 10(14) of the Income Tax Act is quashed. Consequently, the notice of demand is also quashed.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of said demand, respondents have issued notice dated 27-1-2003 and attached the bank account of the petitioner which is in UCO Bank, Station Road, Makrana. Since the demand itself has been quashed by this court, therefore, if any attachment order has been issued by the respondents, they are directed to withdraw the same forthwith.

4. The writ petition is allowed as stated above.