Sanjay Singh v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 3(1), Ranchi & Anr.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The disposed W.P.(T) 7280/2023 was taken on board upon mentioning on 9 April 2026. The requested correction concerned counsel appearing for Sanjay Singh in the order dated 6 April 2026.

Source: PDF p. 1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court directed that Ashish Verma’s name be added alongside Ajay Kumar as an advocate who had appeared for the petitioner. The earlier disposal and its substantive reasoning are not reproduced.

Source: PDF p. 1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The order dated 6 April 2026 was modified only to add the omitted advocate’s name.

Source: PDF p. 1

4. OUTCOME

Clerical correction of the appearance record; no fresh tax relief or reopening of the disposed petition is stated.

Source: PDF p. 1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Read the modification within its express limit

The operative paragraph confines the change to counsel’s appearance. It supplies no basis to describe a reassessment as quashed, a demand as stayed or the petition as restored.

Source: PDF p. 1

Keep the two orders distinct

This PDF is the 9 April correction to a 6 April order. It should remain linked to that history but must not replace or purport to summarise the unavailable substantive order.

Source: PDF p. 1

Use the signed identification

The coram refers to the Chief Justice by office, while the signature identifies M. S. Sonak. The note can therefore name the judge from the source itself without guessing from a roster.

Source: PDF p. 1