The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Sudarshan Exporters on 7 March, 2008

i'i'R. NU. '7I'iIJw'""

1

IN ma HIGH coma or KARNATAKA AT Bmgmmiz   ' 

nxrnn ms '1'!-!E21.'I)AY  " T

Imnqnuri '

-I I.'-I-46-I'a.nw a.'y

I-I-II-rn Itruxvgnt n 11.. 'u:«'I*'I'fl'I: 'lr,'l  A111!' TL1 -.vr|.1 1

Ann HUN Dun IVII. JUEQIIUI3 nu MUV-IU Vt: Ln

Tl-IE HON'BLETvl;f.  NAGARAJV'

1   TAX
C,1{.BtI[l;Bfl'.¥G    * 
x;;vI..r.&2«:1~,IVs.:%1::c.r.A%n;1*.'x 
  

2  A.ssIs'm~11*c(2M1vi1ss1oNER
~ ~('.1RCLEa6(l)(Il~IV)
~  C.R.BUII.Di~FCir,___é .
QUEENS ROAD,

A    
 * Am/.)'

nan»; 
fl:l:!lnL:. ~

n-In A gun: a LII n.»u|u\RTfl'n 

V' Mififibunnunnm

%  ._NC-.1911, SANKEY ROAD,

BANGAi.f)RTE  iiisr-u':m"" *1'

M M' (By.Sri.A.SHANKAR AND sn MJAVA, ADVS.)



2

'rule l.'1'.A. IS Mwu U/8.260-A or l.'l'.AC'l' ieea. 
T0 FORMULATE me sUBsTAN1'1AL ounsnous =  
srxrnn THEREIN AND ALLOW   taste  ' '

A1-I vein. '5':-

N Isiah: 4

Oils'

CIRCLE-6(1)(]NV), BANGALORE,    JUSTICE
nus rm 1st    THIS DAY,
1u..MANmNAjm ;{.'.;})El.§!_VE1!?.li3i)  
o Vk"§ifi§fifie§¢i
   raising the foiiowmg'
substantial " ' « '"
é  it'~wiecher ii Tribunal was jusufi' ed in
A  allowing  of the assessee on the ground
   Ofi-'wet had not issued a notice as
   Section 15331) of the Income Tax

V i" 2. We have  W   fer  After

   1.

V.1’£”1§ 1’18’ the learned counsel, we noticed that the similar question

had come before us in l’l’A.No.390l2002. in the ease of
cmmuissiouer of Income Tax Vs. B.P.MaImmn Raddy. This

I! /

1111:. unfinii e -s m 11%. iTfiL'”ff,
I i.A.’i’ TI 23.33.99: * stem»;

PASSED BY nu: ASSISTANT mmmom ofiemoom TAX, e A A

/”\

IN

Court on 12.11.2007 has answered the qugstion of

A -.L Anfln

1, .In.,..s -1 rm . _/J- -11- _ ..:.__..-‘£7
vow:/I70′ Lf’l”|’]’1(‘\41,C.xQ6’L V/Lu2,Lm=u* wuzur pl 51-_a–g_y

cf/”

I

\_

follouitlg

‘the assessee. Accordingly, this apnea! nsaisssissea; ss