FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, B.RAJENDRAN
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI(1) – Appellant
Versus
K. S. Suresh – Respondent
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
The Revenue has come forward with these appeals challenging the order of the learned singe Judge dated 33. 2005, passed in W.P.Nos.10607, 10608, 10628 to 10631 of 2005. There were three sets of writ petitions filed by three assessees and the challenge in the writ petitions was to identical notices issued under Section 148 dated 111. 2004 and orders passed under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 211. 2004. As the impugned orders are identical in nature, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the impugned notices and the connected proceedings in relation to the petitioner in W.P.Nos.10607 and 10608 of 2005, the orders of which are the subject matter of challenge in W.A.Nos.766 and 767 of 2005.
2. The writ petitioner was issued with a notice dated 111. 2004, under Section 148 of the Act calling upon him to file return of income in the prescribed format for the assessment year 2000-01, as the assessing authority had a reason to believe that his income in respect of the said assessment year chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Closely followed by that, by
1. Tripura Goods Transport Association v. Commissioner of Taxes AIR 1998 S.C. 465
3. Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha v. K. Santhakumari AIR 2001 SC 2306
5. Union of India v. S.C. Parashar AIR 2006 SC 3566
6. Ram Bali v. State of U.P (2004) 10 SCC 598
2. Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan AIR 1998 SC 1681
4. Union of India v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi (2004) 3 SCC 628
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.