9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence are almost identical with those in Taxation Case No. 172 of 1978 which is a reference in the case of the same assesses for the earlier assessment year 1968-69. The said Taxation Case No. 172 of 1978 (CIT v. S. P. Viz Construction Co. (No. 1) [1989] 176 ITR 34) has been decided by our judgment and order passed earlier today. The difference in facts between the present reference and the earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee appeared before the successor Income-tax Officer on February 19, 1973. It was contended before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal that the period from February 1, 1973, till February 19, 1973, should be excluded in computing the period of limitation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted this contention while the Tribunal rejected it. It appears to me that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neness of the entry in the file of the Income-tax Officer dated February 19, 1973, where it was recorded that the case was heard at the assessee's request. The Tribunal found that the said entry was in a different ink. The Tribunal has also found that there was no demand from the assessee either for rehearing or for reopening of the proceedings. No finding of fact by the Tribunal has been challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
