TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Navjot Singh Sidhu moves court in income tax case

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, July 13

Cricketer-turned-politician and Congress MLA Navjot Singh Sidhu today moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court claiming his revision petition under the provisions of the IT Act was dismissed by an Income Tax Joint Commissioner on flimsy and untenable grounds.

Sidhu claimed the order dated March 27 was patiently illegal, arbitrary and passed in complete disregard for the principles of natural justice. The matter was placed before the Bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Vikas Bahl. It will come up for hearing again on July 27.

Advertisement

Sidhu submitted he filed Income Tax return of assessment year 2016-17 on October 19, 2016, declaring total income of Rs 9,66,28,470. The assessment under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act was completed by the assessment officer on December 21, 2018, at the assessed income of Rs 13,19,66,530 after making addition of Rs 3,53,38,067.

Against the erroneous assessment, the petitioner expressly waived off his right to file appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal).

He filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act after taking various grounds before income tax joint commissioner, Range 1, Amritsar.

Instead of going into the merits of the revision, his focus was to seek an explanation on the reasons and circumstances behind Sidhu’s preference for revision under Section 264 of the Act, instead of appeal before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal).

The petitioner stated it was an alternative available to him and reliance was laid on pronouncements by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. But the respondent, in complete disregard for the statutory provisions and legal pronouncements, and in an arbitrary manner, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated March 27.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement