2005 (11) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A) on 21st May, 1996 in relation to asst. yr. 1993-94. It is a recalled matter, inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Bench was recalled vide its later order dt. 29th Aug., 2005. 2. First ground challenges the legality of assessment. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the assessee furnished his return of income on 30th June, 1993. It was processed under s. 143(1)(a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom the end of the month in which the return was filed. It was contended that the proviso to s. 143(2) was applicable in this case and as such, notice of assessment and consequential assessment was invalid. In the opposition, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the impugned order. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is obvious that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gressed his jurisdiction by totally ignoring the fact that the time-limit for issue of notice under s. 143(2) had already expired. Proviso to s. 143(2), at the material time, provided that "no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed". It is seen that the return in this case was filed on 30th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X