Skip to content


M/S. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad, Hindu Undivided Family, Resident of Mohalla Sekhpur, Gorakhpur Vs. 1. the Secretary (Being Notified Authority U/S. 132(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961) Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. the Income-tax Officer, A-ward, Gorakhpur. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.W.P. No. 221-Tax of 1976
Reported in(1976)5CTR(All)149
AppellantM/S. Ram Das Deokinandan Prasad, Hindu Undivided Family, Resident of Mohalla Sekhpur, Gorakhpur
Respondent1. the Secretary (Being Notified Authority U/S. 132(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961) Central Board O
Excerpt:
- - a perusal of the petition clearly established that through the assessee had made representation under section 132(11) of the act and sent various reminders for an early decision of the same, the central board of direct taxes has not decided these representations. no good appears for the delay in disposing of the representation......petitioner has filed this petition claiming a relief for mandamus directing the central board of direct taxes to decide its representation made under section 132(11) of the income-tax act. a prayer has also been made that till not frame final assessment in the case of the assessee. at the time of hearing. dr. r. r. misra counsel for the assessee gave up the second relief and pressed the petitions only as respects the first relief. a perusal of the petition clearly established that through the assessee had made representation under section 132(11) of the act and sent various reminders for an early decision of the same, the central board of direct taxes has not decided these representations. a considerable time has elapsed from the making of the representation. no good appears for the.....
Judgment:

C. S. P. Singh, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition claiming a relief for mandamus directing the Central Board of Direct Taxes to decide its representation made under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. A prayer has also been made that till not frame final assessment in the case of the assessee. At the time of hearing. Dr. R. R. Misra counsel for the assessee gave up the second relief and pressed the petitions only as respects the first relief. A perusal of the petition clearly established that through the assessee had made representation under section 132(11) of the Act and sent various reminders for an early decision of the same, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has not decided these representations. A considerable time has elapsed from the making of the representation. No good appears for the delay in disposing of the representation.

2. We accordingly allow the petition to the extent that respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner under section 132(11) of the Act within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own cost at this stage. A copy of this order will be respondent No. 1.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //