Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33895 (RAJ)

LATE KANTA DEVI JAIN v. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

CW/18311/2024 · 2025-01-06

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Uma Shanker Vyas

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:579-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18311/2024 Late Kanta Devi Jain, Through her Legal Heir Shri Sunil Mittal, Resident Of E-76 101-102, Shri Niketan Apartment, Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block Secretariat Building Delhi Through Its Chairman. 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur 2, Jaipur New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Satwika Jha & Ms. Apeksha Bapna on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 06/01/2025 1. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, learned counsel, on advance copy, enters appearance on behalf of respondents. 2. Heard. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition need not be kept pending but can be disposed of. 4. It appears that a prayer seeking condonation of delay in submission of returns for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2016- 17 filed on 01.08.2018 is pending consideration without any decision thereon. [2025:RJ-JP:579-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18311/2024] 5. Our attention was drawn to a notice dated 13.03.2023. However, that notice is only with respect to the Assessment Year 2016-17. Instant reply to the same by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has reiterated that it has applied seeking condonation of delay for filing ITRs for the Assessment Year 2012- 13 to 2016-17 and not only for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 6. Be that as it may, we are of the view that once an application has been filed seeking condonation, the same was required to be decided one way or the other expeditiously and ought not to have been kept pending for such a long period. 7. We direct respondent No.2-Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur 2 to decide the application within a period of eight weeks. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/33