https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5858 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notice dated 21st May, 1966, despite the lack of a specific amount mentioned, as the petitioners were aware of the amount in question and had responded to the notice. The Court ruled that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) must conduct a proper inquiry following principles of natural justice before determining the falsity of a statement on oath, quashing the notices dated 31st December, 1966, and 11th January, 1967. The Court invalidated the recovery proceedings initiated by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) due to the absence of a recovery certificate. en-us Tue, 21 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5858 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notice dated 21st May, 1966, despite the lack of a specific amount mentioned, as the petitioners were aware of the amount in question and had responded to the notice. The Court ruled that the Income Tax Officer (ITO) must conduct a proper inquiry following principles of natural justice before determining the falsity of a statement on oath, quashing the notices dated 31st December, 1966, and 11th January, 1967. The Court invalidated the recovery proceedings initiated by the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) due to the absence of a recovery certificate. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jul 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5858