https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352794 The court held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable as the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was served after the prescribed time limit. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized the importance of timely service of notices for initiating inquiries post return filing. The court rejected the argument that notice issuance suffices, emphasizing the proviso's mention of 'service' within the time limit. The decision aligned with previous rulings on the necessity of informing the assessee of grounds for rejection of returns. The court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, highlighting adherence to statutory time limits for notice service. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2018 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352794 The court held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable as the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was served after the prescribed time limit. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized the importance of timely service of notices for initiating inquiries post return filing. The court rejected the argument that notice issuance suffices, emphasizing the proviso's mention of 'service' within the time limit. The decision aligned with previous rulings on the necessity of informing the assessee of grounds for rejection of returns. The court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, highlighting adherence to statutory time limits for notice service. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352794