2017 (11) TMI 1485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Navin Durai Babu, learned Junior Counsel for the respondents. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said petition was filed contending that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on petition was dismissed by the impugned order. It may not be necessary for this Court to test the correctness of the impugned proceedings on account of the subsequent development, which took place during the pendency of the writ petition. 3.As noticed earlier, the petitioner had filed Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1074 of 2004, 1184 of 2008 and 502 and 704 of 2009 before the Division Bench. In so far a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment rendered in T.C.(A).No.704 of 2009 and the impugned order in this writ petition will not come in the way of the Assessing Officer implementing the direction issued by the Division Bench. Thus, the challenge to the impugned proceedings has become academic and it would suffice to make an observation that notwithstanding the impugned proceedings passed by the 1st respondent, the Assessing Office .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X