TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the fundamental right to privacy existed or otherwise was moot; the Larger Bench of the Judges is seized of the reference. Consciously, therefore, Binoy Viswam (supra) had not only upheld the validity of Section 139 AA of the Act but also added a note of caution that the consequences spelt out under Section 139AA(2) of the Act would not be presently visited with respect to those assesses who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C) 3226/2018 & CM APPL 12760-12761/2018 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2018 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA For the Petitioner- Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prasanna, S. and Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Advocates, Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prasanna, S. and Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Advocates, Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Nitish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. It is therefore urged that the CBDT s circular relied upon by the petitioner is contextual and compliant of Section 139 AA of the Act is the norm. This Court has considered the submissions. When Binoy Viswam (supra) was decided, the Court was conscious of the issue as to whether the fundamental right to privacy existed or ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
