Income tax case file partially destroyed by fire; notices for reconstitution returned unserved with incorrect address. The High Court held the matter could not be decided on merits for want of documents and dismissed it for non-prosecution, disposing of pending applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:094125-DB ITC-10-1992 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.07.2024
M/S UPPER INDIA GLASS WORKS LTD.
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present None.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE
July 25, 2024
Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
MOHIT GOYAL 2024.07.26 09:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
M/S Upper India Glass Works Ltd.
Commissioner of Income Tax
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sanjay Vashisth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
