TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of Rs. 1,12,693. A revised return was filed on March 22, 1968, and on its basis, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on March 19, 1969. Having failed in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the said assessment, it took the matter to the Tribunal which set aside the same and remanded the case for reframing the assessment according to the directions contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee then moved an application under section 256(1) of the Act which was also declined. He then filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Act for a mandamus to get the following four questions referred to this court : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing to raise the plea that the reassessment framed by the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment made by the Income-tax Officer, vide his order dated March 27, 1982, is time-barred? " A bare perusal of the four questions would show that, in fact, the points involved are only two, namely, as to whether it was open to the assessee to raise the point of limitation against the original assessment after the remand and whether the original assessment framed on March 19, 1969, was barred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It would, therefore, be futile to get this question referred even though it may be a question of law. On the second point again, there is no material on record to show that the original return dated November 26, 1963, was filed under sub-section (4) and not sub-section (5) of section 139 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer has recorded a firm finding that the said return was filed under sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
