9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment is not liable to be entertained by this court, in view of the sequence of events as mentioned hereinbefore. Exhibit P10, as such, is not sought to be set aside in the writ petition and there is no prayer in this regard while the prayer is only to stay exhibit P10 pending writ petition. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus to implement the decision in Alappat Jewels v. Asst. CIT [2013 (1) TMI 373 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. This court holds that no such writ can be issued. There is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the writ petition. - - - - - Dated:- 13-3-2013 - RAMACHANDRA MENON P. R., J. JUDGEMENT P. R. Ramachandra Menon J.- The petitioner has approached this court, see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Eicher Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 561 (SC). It was further contended by the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in proceeding with the reopening of the assessment, on the basis of estimate procured from the petitioner in the course of survey conducted in the premises under section 133A and that the sworn statement given by the managing director of the firm at the time of survey on February 1, 2006, offering additional income of 1.5 crores for the assessment year 2006-07 was subsequently retracted and that the same was an immaterial piece of evidence to be reckoned for the purpose of assessment, in view of the settled position of law. According to the respondents, the above investment was confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, as specified. The petitioner sought to challenge the said verdict by filing an appeal, mainly contending that a preliminary finding had to be rendered by passing a "speaking order", in the light of the law declared by the apex court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. case [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) before entering into the merits of the case. After hearing both the sides and after referring to the relevant provisions of law and the binding judicial precedents, interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed as per the decision reported in Alappat Jewels v. Asst. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 471 (Ker), observing that, the objections preferred by the petitioner-appellant must be necessarily considered and reasons must be given. The petitioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
