Nitin Kumar Garg vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 11304 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6244/2021

Nitin Kumar Garg S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Garg, Aged About 44 Years, Shivam, 476, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.

3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (4), Income Tax Department, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Anil Bhansali
For Respondent(s)         :



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                 Judgment

22/07/2021

(1) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

approached this Court with a grievance that though petitioner has

succeeded in his appeal, the respondents are not giving effect to

the appellate orders and not refunding the amount, to which, the

petitioner is otherwise entitled.

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the

Court towards various representations filed by the assessee, so

also, legal notice dated 28.1.2021 and submitted that no heed is

being paid by the assessing officer-respondent no.3.

(3) The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a

direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation alongwith

(2 of 2) [CW-6244/2021]

certified copy of the order instant and photostat copies of the

earlier representations and relevant documentary evidence in

support of his claim before the Principal Commissioner of Income

Tax, Jodhpur-respondent no.2, within a period of two weeks from

today.

(4) On receipt of the representation, the Principal Commissioner,

Income Tax Department is directed to look into the matter and

ensure that the needful is done as early as possible preferably

within a period of six weeks of receiving the representation.

(5) In case, the respondent no.2 is of the opinion that petitioner

is not entitled for refund as claimed, he shall pass a speaking

order under intimation to the petitioner, against which, petitioner's

rights to take legal remedies shall stand reserved.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

120-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)