IN THE HIGH ceurif or KA.RNATAI{'X?3O988'08
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHAIRWAB
DATED THIS THE 17% 133.? 0? OCTOBER, 2003* Q ._
BEFORE
H019" 31.3 MR. JUSTICE D.V.SI-IYLENDRA. % T '
WRIT PE:'£'ITIGN m.30988 Q';="'2008_[*r-IT}
BETWEEN: " i b A'
V T BHARMAGOUDAR
AGEQ 52 YEARS
3/«:2. SRE THEPANNAGOUDAR _
NONE 12-A, HAUNSABHAW PC%S""§~'._
H§RE1i{ERUR ._ -.
I-IAVERI DISTRECT f_'~V_Pi%._:_*i'1*:'10:~IER
(EEY M/S. gr A RA1v§:?;KR1'SH{iEA1???A,
' C:_IR;sH'1.H£Rr::MA'm,Ar;V+<;;,}
1.
THE Ibxticszsébz TAX ~ . I
WARE) v-1, I’~I{(3i~? sc::–1o’c:L..r2c:~.aD
HAVERI *
. «_ THE :f1i0:~.§rez:$s10i¥:”:s:«1::._c:::<'v
V "{."JC@ME"-TAX {APPEALS}
»z»§AvAm;:A£e,._H~Lr_BLz
3. *;i;:;éi–.§}o’iz£*’}1+2vzs:_:v;~;%:’1£§P013*Imam
BY yrs SEjCRETARY
_ FiNANCE’DE§~ARTMENT
._?GEETA..BH_AvAN,NEw DELH: RESPONQENTS
” *.Ti–£:s…w1:2i?:’ PETITEON {S FILED UNDER ARTECLES 225/227 OF’
CONSTITUTION OF’ INDEA, FRAYING TO QUASH THE
‘.”.._VASS-ESSMENT ORDERS m.2′?.12.o7 AND APPEAL ORDERS vim
A-NNS-E, G, H RESPECTIVELY AS THERE’; ES EXF’Ai3EE AN EVEDENCE
CEFESCEFEON {N EXCESS GI? JURESDECWON AND APPAFEENT ERRORS —
‘ .P¥€0CEif}URAL AND SUBSTANTEAL, {N THE GAMUT OF FROCEEDENGS
” A’i’~i’D SUCH OMISSIONS, ACTS HAVE RESULTED IN THE MANH3-‘EST
C>F’ ENJUSTECE TO THE PETITIONEI? AND EITCL,
— :3 ~» WP3{)’,7.¥88.O8
had gathered based on which assessment order l}a'(1
passed had never been disclosed.
4. While grun_(is urged may be ::,AgoQ(3A_~ j.£
necessary for this ceurt to i1″1tf3Ifft3Z'{§ wI’i€”3E2x*i4sdie?;ie:1
particularly as the petitioner heis.,:»efiicaeiex_:is reigxedy of
fugrther appeal in Eerlns of seeiieij Income Tax Act,
1961. ‘
Si. Petitionef énwfy eppeiiate authority –~ the
Income aI:«iMii’Vy$uci1 an appea} is filed
jgf not iater 1;hai1 teday, the aulzherities shall
LC/4 not enferce demand pending petiiioner
‘eee’1~:i1″;ge’-:>f<:i;é3;'s"in tk1is'feg;;ard.
— imzome tax department shall. not
ressext. ta ::e£:0ve13} preceeciings ix”; the meanwhile.
‘ ‘Otherwise, this writ petition is dismissed
Sd/-u
° An/_’ Judge