Director Income Tax v. Mcdermott International Inc. ....…………

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 30 of 2010 Director Income Tax ...…………. Appellant Versus McDermott International Inc. ....…………. Respondent Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department / appellant. None for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Despite service of notice upon the respondent, none appears. It appears that after assessment was complete, re-assessment was made under Section 263 of the Act. This re-assessment was successfully challenged up to the Tribunal. When the matters were pending before the Tribunal, the effective re-assessment order was passed, which having been taken up before the CIT(Appeal), the appellate authority held that the order is nonest for the foundation thereof is exercise of power under Section 263, which exercise of power has been held to be inappropriate and unjust in the previous round of litigation up to the Tribunal. The matter was then taken up before the Tribunal and, the Tribunal has reiterated what has been stated by the CIT(Appeal). In the backdrop of the facts narrated above, we find that no question of law, far less any important question of law, has arisen in the appeal. We, accordingly, refuse to admit the same and, as such dismiss the appeal. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 01.03.2012 Negi