Chhattisgarh HC Rejects M.Com Student’s Plea for Third Re-Evaluation of Income Tax Marks Over Belated Application Filing [Read Order]
Chhattisgarh HC dismissed an M.Com student’s plea for a third re-evaluation of Income Tax marks, observing his application to Pt. Ravishankar University was filed late.
In a recent ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the plea of M.Com student seeking a third re-evaluation of his Income Tax and Finance Management marks, holding that his application before the University was filed belatedly and could not be entertained.
Dinesh Kumar Dewangan, the petitioner, had appeared in the M.Com final examination in March-April 2019 and was declared passed with 60% marks. He secured 43 out of 100 in Income Tax Law and 53 out of 100 in Financial Management.
On his request, the papers were re-evaluated in January 2020, after which his marks in Income Tax Law increased to 53, while his marks in Financial Management decreased to 42. Dissatisfied, he applied for a third re-evaluation on 25 June 2020, claiming that the University Ordinance of 2017 permitted such a request. The University rejected his application, stating that it was filed beyond the seven-day limit.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
The petitioner’s counsel argued before the High Court that the revised marksheet was received by him only on 24 June 2020, and that he applied for re-evaluation the very next day, well within time. The counsel further argued that the Single Judge had failed to consider the provision in the University Ordinance allowing a third re-evaluation.
The State’s counsel explained that the revised marksheet was actually issued on 28 February 2020, and the petitioner’s claim of receiving it later was unsupported by any evidence. It was pointed out that the University had already followed its rules and carried out re-evaluation properly, and that there was no provision for a third re-evaluation beyond the prescribed period.
The Division Bench comprising Chief JusticeRamesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed that the petitioner’s contention about receiving the marksheet late was misconceived, as no documents were produced to support it. The court explained that the University had acted in accordance with its ordinances and that the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition required no interference.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner’s plea for a third re-evaluation was not maintainable due to delayed filing before the University. No order as to costs was made.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
