Tax recovery limitation turns on the final assessment order, not a Section 143(1) intimation deemed to be demand notice.

Rule 68B of the Second Schedule links limitation for sale of attached immovable property to the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand becomes conclusive. An intimation under Section 143(1) is not that operative order, because its deeming fiction as a notice of demand applies only to recovery machinery and does not convert it into the assessment order fixing liability. Where scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) exists, the later assessment order governs limitation, and if that order is still under appeal, it has not become final for Rule 68B purposes. The limitation challenge based on the earlier intimation therefore fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be treated as an order giving rise to a demand for the purpose of Rule 68B of the Second Schedule, and whether the sale of attached immovable property was barred on limitation for want of a final assessment order within the meaning of that rule.

Analysis: Rule 68B starts the period of limitation from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to the demand has become conclusive or final. The expression is to be understood with reference to the assessment order that determines the tax liability and results in enforceable recovery, not a mere intimation under Section 143(1). The statutory fiction that such intimation is deemed to be a notice of demand operates only for recovery machinery and does not convert the intimation into an assessment order. Once scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is made, the earlier intimation cannot be treated as the operative order for Rule 68B. The period of limitation therefore runs from the final assessment order, and in the present case that order had not become conclusive because the assessee's appeal was still pending.

Conclusion: The intimation under Section 143(1) could not be treated as the order giving rise to the demand under Rule 68B, and the challenge based on expiry of limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The attached properties could validly proceed towards recovery, as the sale was not shown to be time-barred under Rule 68B on the basis urged by the writ applicants.

Ratio Decidendi: For Rule 68B, the relevant "order giving rise to a demand" is the assessment order determining liability, and an intimation under Section 143(1) operates as a deemed notice of demand only for recovery purposes, not as the operative final order for limitation.

---