Limitation in income tax assessments: factual findings on delayed service and inconsistent notices were upheld in reference jurisdiction.

The Tribunal's finding that the assessments were barred by limitation was upheld because it was based on surrounding facts, including the hearing date, delayed service of the assessment orders and demand notices, and inconsistencies in the dates on consequential penalty notices. On those facts, the assessments were treated as not completed in time. In reference jurisdiction, the High Court will not disturb a Tribunal's factual finding merely because another inference is possible, especially where the finding is supported by the record and no specific challenge is made to its factual basis. The answer was in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal's conclusion rested on the surrounding circumstances, including the date of hearing, the delayed service of the assessment orders and demand notices, and inconsistencies in the dates shown on the consequential show-cause notices for penalty. On those facts, the assessment orders were treated as not having been completed within time. In reference jurisdiction, the High Court could not disturb a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal merely because a different inference was suggested, especially when the finding was supported by the record and there was no specific challenge directed to its factual basis.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessments were barred by limitation, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the High Court will not interfere with a Tribunal's finding of fact unless that finding is specifically challenged and shown to lack evidence or rest on a legal misdirection.

---