9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to file this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it becomes necessary to pass a slightly detailed order. The main question before the Tribunal was the meaning of the word "forward" in section 144B of the Act, which requires the Income-tax Officer in certain circumstances to "forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee ". The Department's case wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the word "forward" must be equated with service had, to be rejected, in the case of the assessee the draft order was not forwarded before March 31, 1982. Having rejected the contention that the word "forward" should be equated with service the Tribunal reiterated this view in the later part of the same order in the following observations: "We, therefore, consider that the expression 'fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obvious that even the forwarding of the draft order has been made after 31st of March, 1982. The mere fact that the order itself is dated 30th March, 1982, does not comply with the requirement of the order being forwarded. It must be noted that the draft order was not sent by the Income-tax Officer through post and if he had done so before 31st of March, 1982, then there may be justification for h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations that the Income-tax Officer, however, has chosen to send the order through the process-server of the Department but that no material was placed to show that the Income-tax Officer took steps to ensure that the process-server concerned also served the order within time. Now, undoubtedly, the later observations quoted above are likely to be misunderstood as indicating that the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within the time limit does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The correctness of the view which the Tribunal has taken that the order was forwarded after March 31, 1982, is not put in issue in any question. That finding is not challenged. Therefore, even assuming for moment that on the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has taken the view that the order should have been served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
