Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25279 (RAJ)

MUKESH YADAV, SON OF SHRI GOPAL LAL YADAV v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/10735/2021 · 2025-07-29

Anand Sharma, K R Shriram

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:28757-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10735/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter & Ms. Apeksha Bapna For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/07/2025 1. Revenue had rejected settlement application on the ground that it was filed beyond the cut off date. 2. Both counsels in unison state that such issue has been answered in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Maharashtra, Central Board of Direct Taxes, [2025:RJ-JP:28757-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10735/2021] Interim Board (Settlement Commission), New Delhi, Union of India1. 3. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent No.1 states that his instructions are that there could be another ground for rejection, namely, that there was no pending proceedings and, therefore, the pre-condition to file an application before Settlement Commissioner is not satisfied. 4. As we do not find this ground raised anywhere, following law laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra), which was authored by one of us (Chief Justice), impugned notices dated 08th March 2021 and 28th June 2021 are hereby quashed and set aside keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Application filed before the Interim Board be considered and disposed in accordance with law. 5. Petition disposed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N. Gandhi-Daksh/44 1 2024 (4) TMI 204-Bombay High Court