ITEM NO. 1 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8571-8572/2010 (From judgement and order dated 16/07/2009 in WA No.970/2001,WA No.971/2001 of HIGH COURT OF MADRAS) ASSISTANT COMMR.INCOME TAX MANGALORE Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S CANARA JEWELLERS & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 20/02/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V.Mohan,Adv. Mr.R.K. Raghavan, Adv. Mr. K.V. Balakrishnan, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R Leave granted. appeals are disposed of as infructuous. questions of law, raised by Revenue, are left open to be agitated in appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Court Master [ Signed order is placed on file ] IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1503-1504 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 8571-8572/2010) Assistant Commissioner, Income .. Appellant(s) Tax, Mangalore Versus M/s Canara Jewellers & Ors. .. Respondent(s) O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave are directed against judgment and order passed by High Court of Judicature of Madras, in Writ Appeal Nos. 970 and 971 of 2001, dated 16.07.2009. By impugned judgment and order, High Court has set aside order passed by Settlement Commission dated 21.05.1998 and judgment and order passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 12314 and 12315 of 1998, dated 28.02.2001. 1 3. Appellate Court while setting aside aforesaid impugned judgment and order, had directed Assessing Officer/Competent Authority to proceed with assessments in accordance with law, if otherwise, same is not barred by limitation. 4. Pursuant to said judgment and order passed by Appellate Court Assessing Officer has carried out assessments in case of Firm as well as Partner of firm for different assessment years and, thereafter, issued appropriate demand notices. 5. In our considered opinion, in light of aforesaid developments, it may not be necessary for us to decide questions of law raised and argued by Shri R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for Revenue. 2 6. In result,the appeals are disposed of as infructuous. questions of law, raised by Revenue, are left open to be agitated in appropriate case. Ordered accordingly. ....................J. [H.L. DATTU] ....................J. [DIPAK MISRA] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 20, 2013. Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax, Mangalore v. M/s Canara Jewellers & Or