Rp/739/2012 Of M/S. Bimbis South Star v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/20TH BHADRA 1934 RP.No. 739 of 2012 () IN ITA/1201/2009 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA.1201/2009 DATED 10-01-2012 REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- M/S. BIMBIS SOUTH STAR, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY SHRI. ABDUL GAFOOR, PROPRIETOR. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: --------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 11-09-2012, ALONG WITH RP.740/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK RP.No. 739 of 2012 () IN ITA/1201/2009 --------------------------------------- APPENDIX-------- PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES---------------------- ANNEXURE-A1. COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 1.04.1995. ANNEXUIRE-A2. COPY OF THE PANCHANAMA AND INVENTORY ANNEXURE-A3. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.03.2001 FOR THE BLOCKPERIOD 1988-89 TO 1997-98 AND BROCKEN PERIOD 1.04.1998 TO 10.03.1999. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL---------------------- / TRUE COPY / VK P.A. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P.No.739/2012 in I.T.A.No.1201/2009,R.P.No.740/2012 in I.T.A.No.1268/2009, R.P.No.775/2012 in I.T.A.No.1218/2009 & R.P.No.813/2012 in I.T.A.No.1311/2009. -------------------------- Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2012. J U D G M E N T C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. The review petitions are filed pointing out mistakes in judgment withregard to the service of Panchanamas after search. We notice that all thesecontentions were considered in detail in the judgment and the clear findingis that Rule 112 was followed in the search carried out, after issuing warrantin the name of each and everyassessee separately by describing all of themas “Bimbis Group of Concerns”. We, therefore, do not find any mistake inthe judgment warranting interference. Consequently, the review petitions are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.VINOD CHANDRAN, amk JUDGE.