9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 16th October, 2009. The said order records that the Assessing Officer could not have passed order dated 31st December, 2008 under Section under Section 158 BD read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the earlier order of the tribunal dated 5th April, 2007. 2. By order dated 10th October, 2011, the following substantial questions of law were framed:- "1. Whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 5th April, 2007, wherein the following final findings have been recorded:- "90. Similarly accepting the assessee?s contention that no valid opportunity was granted to the assessees before making the impugned assessment order and that the satisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating proceedings under section 158 80 of the Act, we set aside the impugned assessment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of delay. 6. Impugned order passed by the tribunal dated 16th October, 2009 cannot be challenged and questioned on the ground that order dated 5th April, 2007 was incorrect or erroneous and an order of remand should be passed. 7. Tribunal in their order dated 5th April, 2007 had relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Nalini Mahajan Vs. Director of Income Tax (Investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .? 8. It was accordingly held that the authorization in the case of Sanjeev Anand was invalid and, therefore, the authorization under Section 158 BD issued in the case of respondent herein is also invalid. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the appellant has completely misunderstood the order dated 5th April, 2007. The block assessment order was not set aside on the ground of failure to fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
