TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment was ab initio void, inasmuch as the Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 148 of the Act when he had sufficient time to issue notice under section 143(3) of the Act Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. K. M. Pachayappan has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Held that- dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was right in holding that notice under section 148 of the Act could not be issued for making an assessment under section 147 of the Act, when time limit was available for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act for making an asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hayappan [2008] 304 ITR 264 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The correctness of the said order is now canvassed before this court by formulating the following substantial question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notice under section 148 of the Act cannot be issued for making an assessment under section 147 of the Act, when time limit is available for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act for making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act?" 3. We heard learned counsel for the Revenue, who fairly submitted that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of Trustees of H. E. H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been communicated to the assessee within a reasonable period. In any case, the note dated November 10, 1965, was merely an internal endorsement on the file without there being an indication if the refund application had been finally rejected. By merely recording that in his opinion, no credit for tax deducted at source was to be allowed, the Income-tax Officer could not be said to have closed the proceedings finally. During the pendency of the return filed under section 139 of the Act along with the refund application under section 237 of the Act, action could not have been taken under section 147/148 of the Act (headnote)." 4. Following the abovesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. K. M. Pachayappan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
