IN THE HIGH couRT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAsPua QxgJ’ CHHAmseARH ”X TAX CASE No. Q7/}0/Lg r /2010 Q'VMQB i Ry “g WCommissioner of Income Tax ,Raipur, Districf— Raipur (C.G.) APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Achin Bannerjee, Prop. M/s Egg Indusfries, 59 Anand Nagar', Raipur. w” INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE ! Sameer Shrivastava, Advocate for tFte applicant. On the request of learned applicant, three weeks time is g defaults, as pointed out by the office, failing which the tax case y without reference to the shall stand dismissed automaticall‘ Bench. Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge counsel appearing for the ’anted to make good the Sd/— R.S. Sharma' Judge era W, We \%i 6 O X1 mm ’1} L tit)m 200 ’ mm (W) ammfzata: can mew mmm m mmafsém a; m m Division Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Ag_nihotri & Hon’ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma JJ. 6-9-2011 Heard Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri 3a Emma? mug W X!»HC——78 é? WWW ammm Wwm WW§W®§R $Wm ii Ww~ 1 2/03/201 2 is traated as dismissed for non-oompfiance of peremptory court’s order datgd 06.09.2011 (for details note-sheet part may kindly be seen). Counse! be informed Lo This case accordingly. rr—e Sdl- / (Q/fxciy 27*/% 72‘ m m (@‘igaee;