9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the assessment passed for the assessment year 1989-90, raising the following substantial question of law. Whether the authorities were justified in not holding that the order of assessment was barred by limitation since the assessing Officer did not pass an order within an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t response, the Assessing Officer issued on more notice on 22.3.1993 and thereafter, the order of assessment has been completed on 29.3.1996 calling upon the assessee to pay the tax. This order was questioned by the appellant by filling an appeal before the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was also dismissed, on merits. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant filed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the notice. Admittedly the assessment order has not been completed within two years. Therefore, we have to consider whether the subsequent notice issued by the Assessing Officer would extend the law of limitation. Pursuant to the notice dated 10.6.1991, the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the notice under Section 142(1) was issued by him on 19.08.1991 and another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder to save limitation, one more notice was issued on 22.3.1993 and the same need not be taken into account to save limitation, as there is no provision under the Act to issue notice after notices under Section 148 of the Act, Since the question of law has not been considered by the Tribunal, as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we are of the opinion that on this short ground, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
