TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, for the opinion of this court on the following question: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proceeding under s. 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, was barred by limitation ? The relevant facts can very well be culled out from the statement of the case as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act dated March 19, 1976, addressed to the assessee was sent through registered post on March 29, 1976. The notice was served on the assessee on April 3, 1976. The assessee filed a written reply dated May 24, 1976. A request was made for treating the return originally filed under section 139 of the Act to be the return in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended that there had been no omission or failure on the part of the assessee as it had itself disclosed the gross receipt in the original return correctly at Rs. 4,55,030. The legal submission made was that the proceedings have become bad as the notice under section 148 issued on March 19, 1976, was inoperative. That was delivered through postal registered A/D letter on April 2/3, 1976. As the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue relied upon two decisions, namely, Jai Hanuman Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 36, Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and New Bank of India Ltd.v. ITO [1982] 136 ITR 679, a Bench decision of the Delhi High Court. These decisions can hardly be pressed into service on behalf of the Revenue in the instant case. Havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
