https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168245 Fresh ceiling proceedings could not be reopened under Section 32B where the earlier proceeding had already ended in a final order, and the authority's omission to issue the final statement under Section 11(1) could not be used to prejudice the landholder. The later amendment was held inapplicable to a concluded proceeding, so Section 32B could not sustain reopening. However, the separate allegation that lands had been withheld in the original return, involving concealment or fraud, required independent factual examination. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration on that limited issue. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168245 Fresh ceiling proceedings could not be reopened under Section 32B where the earlier proceeding had already ended in a final order, and the authority's omission to issue the final statement under Section 11(1) could not be used to prejudice the landholder. The later amendment was held inapplicable to a concluded proceeding, so Section 32B could not sustain reopening. However, the separate allegation that lands had been withheld in the original return, involving concealment or fraud, required independent factual examination. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration on that limited issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168245