https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190029 The court held that for reopening past assessments the tax officer need only possess prima facie grounds or a reasonable belief, based on contemporaneous relevant material, that primary facts were omitted; sufficiency of that material cannot be collaterally challenged in writ jurisdiction, so the section 34 notices were within jurisdiction. The court further held that the petitioner's one-year-plus delay, repeated adjournments and failure to disclose interim proceedings constituted inordinate delay and oppressive conduct disentitling the petitioner to extraordinary relief under Article 226; consequently the writ petitions were dismissed. en-us Mon, 02 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Feb 2017 13:45:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190029 The court held that for reopening past assessments the tax officer need only possess prima facie grounds or a reasonable belief, based on contemporaneous relevant material, that primary facts were omitted; sufficiency of that material cannot be collaterally challenged in writ jurisdiction, so the section 34 notices were within jurisdiction. The court further held that the petitioner's one-year-plus delay, repeated adjournments and failure to disclose interim proceedings constituted inordinate delay and oppressive conduct disentitling the petitioner to extraordinary relief under Article 226; consequently the writ petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190029