9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in absence of any finding that the service was affected on the principal officer or an agent authorised in that behalf by the applicant ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, was there any material on the record in support of the finding of the Tribunal that the applicant has failed to discharge the onus that lay on it that the impugned notice under s. 143 (2) was not validly served and the assessment under s. 144 was bad ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in placing the burden on the applicant to prove that the service was not validly affected and upholding the service as valid since the notice had been served under registered post ? 4. Whether in the facts and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the ITO had an inherent power to condone the delay in such matters. On there the delay in such matters. On further appeal, the Tribunal took the view that the IT CIT (A) was wrong in holding that the ITO had an inherent power to condone the delay. Also it was found by the Tribunal that the demand notice and assessment orders had been properly served on 23rd Feb., 1979. 3. Then the assessee made application under s. 256 (1) of the Act, 1961 raising the instant question but they were rejected by the Tribunal. 4. In our opinion, common question No. 1 to 4 to not arise from the Tribunal's order and, therefore they are rejected. 5. So far as common question No. 6 is concerned, we are of the view that s. 5 of the Limitation Act can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed to the proper person. Shri Gulati argues that the Tribunal was wrong in presuming that on the facts and circumstances of the case there was a valid service. His argument it that the having the presumption of valid service, the Tribunal should have recorded a finding on the condition precedent that the postal cover was addressed to the proper person and that the Tribunal was wrong in assuming the basic fact that the postal cover was addressed to proper person Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue, argues that no direction can be given to the Tribunal to refer the question No. 5 as in view of s. 292-B of the Act, 1961, the question; whether there was defective service on account of the fact that the orders and the notices w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
