2002 (2) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sary to appreciate the rival contentions may be stated briefly are as under: The petitioner is the karta of Maneklal D. Shah, Hindu undivided family (HUF), which is carrying on proprietary business of dealing in polyester yarn in the name of M/s. Amsons Export Corporation. Some time in the month of November, 1978, a search operation was carried out in the office as well as residential premises of the assessee and its karta, Mr. M.D. Shah. The petitioner contended that nothing incriminating was found during the search operation carried out under section 132 of the Act. The petitioner submitted that at no point of time any material much less legally acceptable material was brought on record by the tax authorities/tax department to estab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scussions had taken place between the petitioner and the first respondent on the amount of income. Ultimately, in the month of July, 1981, a settlement was reached between the petitioner and the Department. In the settlement, it was settled that an amount of Rs. 15.50 lakhs be added to the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1979-80, the backdrop thereof is not necessary for the decision of this petition. Being aggrieved by the order dated September 4, 1986 (exhibit E), the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the said order on various grounds set out in the petition. No affidavit-in-opposition is filed on record in spite of lapse of mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame can very well be read in support of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The said settlement has been signed by three officers of the Income-tax Department, namely, Income-tax Officers, Central Circle XIX, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range-IV, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II. As assured in the settlement, it was obligatory on the part of the first respondent to move the Board for their approval but it appears that no steps were taken in this behalf or at any rate no material is produced before us to show that any approach in this behalf was made to the Board. No explanation for this inaction on the part of the first respondent is forthcoming. Thus, in spite of the settlement arrived at the petition under se....