https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185081 An application under section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held premature because the matter had already been remanded and the questions raised were still under inquiry before final orders by the Commissioner. The court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had to state facts and give reasons for his findings, but that requirement did not make the reference maintainable at that stage. It also recorded that the service of notice under section 23(2) was unclear on the record and declined to express any view on the nature of the questions sent back for inquiry. The application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 21 Jan 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:39:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185081 An application under section 66(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was held premature because the matter had already been remanded and the questions raised were still under inquiry before final orders by the Commissioner. The court noted that the Assistant Commissioner had to state facts and give reasons for his findings, but that requirement did not make the reference maintainable at that stage. It also recorded that the service of notice under section 23(2) was unclear on the record and declined to express any view on the nature of the questions sent back for inquiry. The application was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 21 Jan 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185081