TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the judgment under review proceeds on an erroneous premise that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression and contends that no notice was served. It is also contended that the Petitioner is not connected with the film laboratory and the findings rendered are not borne out from the record. Division Bench had refused to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the reasons set out in the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review of the oral judgment and order dated 27 August 2014 passed in Writ Petition No.127 of 2007. 2. In the writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax refusing to entertain the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner against the assessment order. 3. After hearing the Petitioner and the Respondents, vide a detailed judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made abut the attachment of the film. The Division Bench, accordingly, came to the conclusion that this suppression of facts made the case of the Petitioner regarding service of notice doubtful. The Division Bench also made observations regarding postal acknowledgment of the notice/order. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and the learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
