Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138037-DB
128+276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM
CM-9592-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP
CWP-7799-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 222.10.2024
Kuldeep ...Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR.
M JUSTICE SANJAY VASHIST
VASHISTH
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
CM-9592-CWP
CWP-2024
Application for placing on record reply, is allowed subject to all
just exceptions. Reply is directed to be placed on record accordingly.
CWP-7799-2024
2024 (O&M)
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the
petitioner is a farmer.
farmer The amount deposited in the bank of Rs.1 Crore was the
advance received for selling of his land but the same could not be completed on
account of partition of the land could not take place. It is stated that the amount
of Rs.82 Lakh was returned by the petitioner
petitioner to the purchaser.
2. The respondents have passed an assessment order holding
income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1 Crore. Appeal was filed but the same
is not being entertained on account of shortage of pre
pre-deposit.
deposit. Learned counsel
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138037-DB
CWP-7799-2024 (O&M) [2]
submits that appeal filed by the petitioner ought to be decided without imposing
condition of pre-deposit.
3. Reply has been filed by the respondents-department, which is
taken on record. As per the reply, the respondents have stated that the petitioner
has not produced any documentary evidence with regard to deposit of Rs.1
Crore cash in the bank. Learned counsel submits that accordingly the tax
demand was raised and the petitioner's ought not be allowed to be heard without
payment of 10% of the outstanding demand.
4. We have considered the submissions.
5. The assessee had declared his income as Rs.1,98,890/- for the AY:
2013-14 which has been enhanced by the department to Rs.1 Crore more.
6. Taking into consideration the financial condition of the petitioner
and also taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ambuj A. Kasiliwal 2021 (2)
Scale 593, we direct the respondents to consider the appeal of the petitioner by
waiving the pre-deposit condition of 10% of the demand.
7. The petition is allowed accordingly. The petitioner would be free
to place all the documentary evidence with regard to his contentions, before the
Appellate Authority.
8. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
2 of 2
