COL JAI PARKASH SHARMA RETD V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULAAND ANR

CWP/8382/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Col Jai Parkash Sharma, a retired Army Officer, who filed a writ petition against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula. The petitioner had been filing his income tax returns regularly and was also entitled to a War Injury Pension as per an order from the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 01.01.2012. The dispute arose when some of his revised income tax returns for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 were rejected by a subsequent Assessing Officer, which the petitioner contended was impermissible in law. The court heard the arguments and decided to direct the respondent to address the petitioner's representations expeditiously.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693692 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KAPOR
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVDEEP SINGH; ROOPAN ATWAL
• Keywords: Assessment years; Income Tax Returns; Revised Returns; War Injury Pension

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 136 COL JAI PARKASH SHARMA RETD CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE Present: Mr. Ms. Roopan Atwal, Mr. for respondents/ ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Army Officer. He had been duly filing his he was also held entitled to the War Injury Pension by the order of Armed Forces Tribunal dated 01.01.2012 w. revised income tax The revised return were accepted by the Assessing Officer (Annexures P-4, P rejected some of the 2017 by order dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P The petitioner ha IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8382-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 25.03.2025 COL JAI PARKASH SHARMA RETD Versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate and Ms. Roopan Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapor, Senior Standing counsel respondents/Income Tax. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Army Officer. He had been duly filing his he was also held entitled to the War Injury Pension by the order of Armed Forces Tribunal dated 01.01.2012 w.e.f. 19.10.2009 income tax return for the assessment year The revised returns for assessment years 2014-2015, 2015 accepted by the Assessing Officer by the orders passed 4, P-5 and P-6). However, later on, another Assessing Officer ha some of the revised returns for assessment years 2015 2017 by order dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P-7), which The petitioner had preferred representations to the respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 25.03.2025 … Petitioner (s) CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA AND ANR ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Advocate for the petitioner. Saurabh Kapor, Senior Standing counsel Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired Army Officer. He had been duly filing his income tax returns. However, he was also held entitled to the War Injury Pension by the order of Armed 19.10.2009. The petitioner had filed the years 2010-2011 till 2016-2017. 2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 by the orders passed on 05.08.2021 . However, later on, another Assessing Officer had for assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016- , which is impermissible in law. to the respondents in this regard ... Respondent(s) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tax returns. However, he was also held entitled to the War Injury Pension by the order of Armed The petitioner had filed the . 2017 on 05.08.2021 d - is impermissible in law. SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.03.26 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-8382-2025 which are annexed petition be disposed of with a direction to decide representation 2. Issue notice to the 3. Mr. Saurabh Kapor, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 4. Heard. 5. In the afore to dispose of the petition decide the representation preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 25.03.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 annexed at Annexures P-17, P-18 and P petition be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide representations in a time bound manner. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Saurabh Kapor, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Heard. In the afore-noted facts and circumstances, we deem it the petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-17, P preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -2- 18 and P-19. He submits that the respondent No.2 to consider and Mr. Saurabh Kapor, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of noted facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to respondent No.2 to consider and , P-18 and P-19) expeditiously preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No He submits that the respondent No.2 to consider and Mr. Saurabh Kapor, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of appropriate to respondent No.2 to consider and expeditiously preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.03.26 11:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "