2010 (2) TMI 1131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent : Suresh Kumar ORDER 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondent waives service. With the consent of counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2.The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order passed by the Tribunal on 9th November, 2009 by which the application of the petitioner under section 254(2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the departmental representative. The Tribunal also did not indicate that it was relying on those judgments. The petitioner is particularly aggrieved by the reliance placed on the Supreme Court's Judgment in CIT V/s. P. Mohankala [(2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)]. According to the petitioner, no opportunity was given to him to explain how the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. Th....