https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368105 Rule 68B(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act was treated as prescribing a three-year limit for sale proceedings, because the Central Board of Direct Taxes could not extend that statutory period to four years by notification. The court noted that the earlier Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling invalidating the notification had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that a later connected decision did not hold that Rule 68B(1) itself fixed a four-year period. Applying the three-year limit, the auction notice dated 18.11.2004 was issued after expiry of time calculated from 01.04.2001, and the record did not show a resale covered by the proviso. The notice was therefore quashed, and the consequential attachment was also set aside. en-us Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2018 14:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368105 Rule 68B(1) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act was treated as prescribing a three-year limit for sale proceedings, because the Central Board of Direct Taxes could not extend that statutory period to four years by notification. The court noted that the earlier Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling invalidating the notification had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that a later connected decision did not hold that Rule 68B(1) itself fixed a four-year period. Applying the three-year limit, the auction notice dated 18.11.2004 was issued after expiry of time calculated from 01.04.2001, and the record did not show a resale covered by the proviso. The notice was therefore quashed, and the consequential attachment was also set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368105