https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11844 The court upheld the validity of the summons (Exhibit P8) issued under Section 131 read with Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, finding that the second respondent had the authority to issue it. The court determined that the second respondent had jurisdiction over the petitioner, even if the petitioner was not within the officer's jurisdiction. The summons requiring the production of specific information was deemed valid, superseding earlier summons. The court concluded that there was sufficient reason to suspect income concealment by distributors in Kerala, justifying the summons issuance. The petitioner was granted an extended deadline of one month to comply with the summons. en-us Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11844 The court upheld the validity of the summons (Exhibit P8) issued under Section 131 read with Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, finding that the second respondent had the authority to issue it. The court determined that the second respondent had jurisdiction over the petitioner, even if the petitioner was not within the officer's jurisdiction. The summons requiring the production of specific information was deemed valid, superseding earlier summons. The court concluded that there was sufficient reason to suspect income concealment by distributors in Kerala, justifying the summons issuance. The petitioner was granted an extended deadline of one month to comply with the summons. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11844