Case Law Details
Case Name : Shri Pradyot K. Misra Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Delhi High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Delhi High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and Income Tax Ombudsman.
In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, he filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs.4,10,917/- consisting of salary income, property income and income from other sources. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. On
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
When a retired Revenue Officer of the rank of CIT, DG Vigilance, CBDT etc can be constantly harassed he rightly approached the High Court, imagine the fate of a common tax payer! There are many more cases of the ITOs or the FIU shooting out computerised unsigned notices.
I, a retired CA, have received a issued notice for 3 years long after I have have been assessed and even refund orders issued for the long bygone assessment years. Subsequent refunds of TDS are held up. CPC doesn’t respond and the Jurisdictional ITO passes the buck.
Nagesh Kini, CA Mumbai